# Mueller report finished.



## Ramjet (Mar 22, 2019)

No new indictments recommended

www.theguardian.com: Mueller report: no new indictments recommended, says DoJ official – live

So is this going to be the end?
Or are the Democrats going to kick the can down the road with their own investigation in the House?


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Mar 22, 2019)

I will leave this image here and I will take my exit now.........


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 22, 2019)

Oh okay its about trump and russia... looks like this guy found nothing !


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 22, 2019)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I kept saying the Russia probe wouldn't find anything..


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Wait, what is happening ?



The 2 year Trump investigation on Russian collusion is over with no new indictments reccomended by Mueller's office.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Wait, what is happening ?



An investigation into Russian interference in the American election cycle was going on in the US for the last 22 months. They indicted 6 Americans, and several Russians, so people were expecting that when the report was finished that more indictments could follow, but there are no new ones.


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 22, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> The 2 year Trump investigation on Russian collusion is over with no new indictments reccomended by Mueller's office.





Fallowfox said:


> An investigation into Russian interference in the American election cycle was going on in the US for the last 22 months. They indicted 6 Americans, and several Russians, so people were expecting that when the report was finished that more indictments could follow, but there are no new ones.


Boi politic is complicated


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Boi politic is complicated


Indeed. Can be very confusing if you have no clue on where to even begin. xD


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 22, 2019)

If there is no russian collusion, then do you think trump will run for a second presidential term ?


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Mar 22, 2019)

Frankly, I feel like this should be the end here.  But not for the reason most people are expecting.

This investigation got a number of indictments as it was.  In the time following the election, Trump and his administration have done enough of their own things while in power.  Enough crazy things have happened in the world that get tied back to Trump.

The Democrats have plenty to try wielding against him in 2020*.  They should be thinking strategy with what they have, because I'd wager a good one-third to one-half of the general public will think continuing to focus on the election two years later is childish.  And image counts for way too much in politics.  AND focusing all your energy on one gamble is far too risky with what's at stake this time.



...if you can't tell, I'm REALLY not counting on this one proving collusion.  I live daily in the proximity of people who think this is overblown, it's kind of gotten into my mind to fold on this particular hand and think farther ahead.




renarddéfoncé said:


> If there is no russian collusion, then do you think trump will run for a second presidential term ?



Frankly, I'm under the assumption he'll find a way to run regardless.  The guy's more than a little headstrong and I think I'll leave it to everyone else to explain further.

* Whether these political weapons are duds or not is beyond the scope of what I'm trying to argue.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 22, 2019)

On the subject of the indictments that did occur, Manafort was one wasn't he?
I was surprised that the sentence was short, considering that the crimes included millions of dollars of tax evasion and lobbying for a foreign power.
That was a 47 month sentence, but I remember reading a lawyer complaining that their client was given 36-72 months just for stealing $100, so I was a little skeptical that justice had really been done there.


renarddéfoncé said:


> If there is no russian collusion, then do you think trump will run for a second presidential term ?



I think it's pretty likely they'll run, yeah.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> If there is no russian collusion, then do you think trump will run for a second presidential term ?


He will. They have nothing on him, and have tried ever since he got elected. 2020 is going to look rather nice.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 22, 2019)

FrostyTheDragon said:


> Frankly, I feel like this should be the end here.  But not for the reason most people are expecting.
> 
> This investigation got a number of indictments as it was.  In the time following the election, Trump and his administration have done enough of their own things while in power.  Enough crazy things have happened in the world that get tied back to Trump.
> 
> ...




I agree..

The Dem's have 20 months to get it together and catch a win, or risk losing again in 2020 by focusing on revenge politics which is leaving a sour taste in most mouths...

I personally believe if they keep pushing this narrative it will be politically damaging to their own base.


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Mar 22, 2019)

I  I
I   IL

no collusion can be found


----------



## CrookedCroc (Mar 22, 2019)

Trump going for a second year, Sargon of Akkad becomes an actual political figure in the UK, John McAfee still trying to run for president and Berny getting donations again.

2020 is gonna be one hell of a year.


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 22, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> He will. They have nothing on him, and have tried ever since he got elected. 2020 is going to look rather nice.


Yeah, and also from what i can see online, a lot of democrats are hating trump since 2016, and they keep going. But i also see that trump is good for the usa economy (or maybe its wrong ?)... So i dont understand the hate toward trump !


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 22, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> Trump going for a second year, Sargon of Akkad becomes an actual political figure in the UK, John McAfee still trying to run for president and Berny getting donations again.
> 
> 2020 is gonna be one hell of a year.




I've already started stockpiling on popcorn!
I'm pretty sure there'll be enough salt to go around during that time on both sides, so I'm good there


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 22, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> Sargon of Akkad becomes an actual political figure in the UK,



For a political party whose science advisor is on record suggesting that everybody with HIV should have been rounded up into camps no less, and that 'the average homosexual has 500-1000 sexual partners'. 
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia

The Man also claims that he has invented a magic cure for herpes. 

Thankfully this party is perceived as something of a joke in the UK; their motto is actually the same as the Terran federation in Starship troopers.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Yeah, and also from what i can see online, a lot of democrats are hating trump since 2016, and they keep going. But i also see that trump is good for the usa economy (or maybe its wrong ?)... So i dont understand the hate toward trump !


Identity politics and tribalism, basically. To an extreme degree, too. He was elected based on his campaign promises and statements, and he is delivering on them regardless of whatever hate he is thrown his way.

Through being elected he's exposed the hypocrisy, corruption, discrimination, double-standards and other bullshit running rampant, and people love him for it.


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 22, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> Identity politics and tribalism, basically. To an extreme degree, too. He was elected based on his campaign promises and statements, and he is delivering on them regardless of whatever hate he is thrown his way.
> 
> Through being elected he's exposed the hypocrisy, corruption, discrimination, double-standards and other bullshit running rampant, and people love him for it.


Yeah, i follow him on twitter and sometime he just writes « WITCH HUNT ! ». If he is delivering his promises, is he going to build the wall ?


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Yeah, i follow him on twitter and sometime he just writes « WITCH HUNT ! ». If he is delivering his promises, is he going to build the wall ?


He's already working on having it built from what I can gather. Just needs funding for it.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Mar 22, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> For a political party whose science advisor is on record suggesting that everybody with HIV should have been rounded up into camps no less, and that 'the average homosexual has 500-1000 sexual partners'.
> Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - Wikipedia
> 
> The Man also claims that he has invented a magic cure for herpes.
> ...



I mean, regardless of all that if they have a stupid youtuber as a serious member of their party they're pretty much a joke. Then again people used to call Trump a joke candidate...


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 22, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> He's already working on having it built from what I can gather. Just needs funding for it.


Well... i guess its a good thing then ? I mean, he is just doing what he promised !


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Yeah, and also from what i can see online, a lot of democrats are hating trump since 2016, and they keep going. But i also see that trump is good for the usa economy (or maybe its wrong ?)... So i dont understand the hate toward trump !


Where do I begin? Environmental policies? Nepotism? Cronyism? Sexual assault allegations? Obvious signs of psychological aberration worsening all the time? There's quite a wide selection of reasons.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 22, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Well... i guess its a good thing then ? I mean, he is just doing what he promised !


Indeed. He's not a career politician and not part of the establishment, which is why some 90-99% of all the press he receives is negative.

But people don't believe the press/news anymore. Trump being elected is proof of that.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 22, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> I mean, regardless of all that if they have a stupid youtuber as a serious member of their party they're pretty much a joke. Then again people used to call Trump a joke candidate...



Yeah their party is having a particularly difficult time at the moment; their former leader quit the party in December because he thought the party had become fixated on promoting a hatred of Muslims. 
www.bbc.co.uk: Former leader Nigel Farage quits UKIP


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Mar 22, 2019)

I think people are reading the things they want to see into this. 

The article says over, and over, and over, that while there are no further indictments by Mueller, the information in the report itself has not been released. That information can, when released, result in essentially 'who knows what other results' (essentially).  Anything further would be determined by congress. 

So... No, this isn't the end of things.  It's just the end of the investigation.  The article states that so many times I don't quite understand why it seems to be getting willfully ignored.


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Mar 22, 2019)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> I think people are reading the things they want to see into this.
> 
> The article says over, and over, and over, that while there are no further indictments by Mueller, the information in the report itself has not been released. That information can, when released, result in essentially 'who knows what other results' (essentially).  Anything further would be determined by congress.
> 
> So... No, this isn't the end of things.  It's just the end of the investigation.  The article states that so many times I don't quite understand why it seems to be getting willfully ignored.


If I had to make a guess, it's cause no one reads the articles anyone posts. 
They just look at headlines and draw their own lines from there. 
This is an incredibly complicated matter that isn't likely to get fully fleshed out on a furry forum... with or without everyone reading the source material.


----------



## CrookedCroc (Mar 22, 2019)

Le Chat Nécro said:


> If I had to make a guess, it's cause no one reads the articles anyone posts.
> They just look at headlines and draw their own lines from there.
> This is an incredibly complicated matter that isn't likely to get fully fleshed out on a furry forum... with or without everyone reading the source material.



I guess you could say that (in here) articles/links are like business cards, everyone seems to be handing them over but no one actually uses them


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 22, 2019)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> I think people are reading the things they want to see into this.
> 
> The article says over, and over, and over, that while there are no further indictments by Mueller, the information in the report itself has not been released. That information can, when released, result in essentially 'who knows what other results' (essentially).  Anything further would be determined by congress.
> 
> So... No, this isn't the end of things.  It's just the end of the investigation.  The article states that so many times I don't quite understand why it seems to be getting willfully ignored.




That information did not result in futher indictments though, and legal Scholars are at odds whether a sitting US president can or could be indicted in the first place,

but.....

If Mueller had evidence of high crimes/misdemeanors, would it not be his fiduciary responsibility to provide that evidence to Congress or the AG during the investigation?

It's not like we had to wait for this report to be finished to get the indictments that have already been filed...They were dished out when enough evidence was presented within the investigation to file an indictment in the first place.


----------



## Peach's (Mar 22, 2019)

Oh no, Russians bought Facebook ads in agreement that they will give Trump a better deal on a hotel. The horror.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Mar 22, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> That information did not result in futher indictments though, and legal Scholars are at odds whether a sitting US president can or could be indicted in the first place,



So it makes sense for Mueller to not directly try to indict Trump even if the report has damming evidence.



Ramjet556 said:


> If Mueller had evidence of high crimes, would it not be his fiduciary responsibility to provide that evidence to Congress or the AG during the investigation?



No. If he knows what his limits and abilities are, he wouldn't try to overstep them and destroy his case. 



Ramjet556 said:


> It's not like we had to wait for this report to be finished to get the indictments that already have been filed



Those other criminals werent the US president.  They just worked with him. 

Really dude, if you just read the title and didn't read the article, it's best to just admit that, and not gaslight with supposition or misinformation.


----------



## Firuthi Dragovic (Mar 22, 2019)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> I think people are reading the things they want to see into this.
> 
> The article says over, and over, and over, that while there are no further indictments by Mueller, the information in the report itself has not been released. That information can, when released, result in essentially 'who knows what other results' (essentially). Anything further would be determined by congress.
> 
> So... No, this isn't the end of things. It's just the end of the investigation. The article states that so many times I don't quite understand why it seems to be getting willfully ignored.



I'll concede that when it comes to things like this, I've been taught to expect the worst.  A lot.  I'm also trying to read the room - or in this case the public at large - in regards to the impact of this and most of the people I know are jumping to the 'no collusion' conclusion.  As a result, I'm already trying to move a step ahead like the tactic isn't working.

There are reasons I don't do well with politics - getting ahead of someone else like that is only going to cause them to start screeching.

I will bring up something else I saw when going through the link: it's only the end of THIS investigation.  There's quite a few more investigations that Mueller's findings can feed, and that can play into the long-term tactics I was trying to suggest.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 22, 2019)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> So it makes sense for Mueller to not directly try to indict Trump even if the report has damming evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I read the article, and came to the conclusion that no further legal action shall be taken on their end...

The AG will report to Congress in the next few days, and we will find out how much if any of this will actually be made available to the public...

Guess we'll find out


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (Mar 22, 2019)

CrookedCroc said:


> I guess you could say that (in here) articles/links are like business cards, everyone seems to be handing them over but no one actually uses them


It's almost like people are banking on the fact that no one reads them so they can just draw whatever conclusions they want and call it a day. 
Like if your business card said you were a valet but you introduced yourself as a professional race car driver and just counted on the picture of a car on the card to sell the lie.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Mar 22, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> I read the article, and came to the conclusion that no further legal action shall be taken on their end...
> 
> The AG will report to Congress in the next few days, and we will find out how much if any of this will actually be made available to the public...
> 
> Guess we'll find out



I just don't believe you, sorry.  To read an article that says (paraphrasing) "And now it's up to the attorney General and congress to decide what to do next" and come to the conclusion that it said "And that's that, no collusion"...

That just doesn't make sense.  There's no logical connection there.  So I think you didn't actually read it.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 22, 2019)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> I just don't believe you, sorry.  To read an article that says (paraphrasing) "And now it's up to the attorney General and congress to decide what to do next" and come to the conclusion that it said "And that's that, no collusion"...
> 
> That just doesn't make sense.  There's no logical connection there  So I think you didn't actually read it.




That's your prerogative bud, and your fully entitled to it...

My thoughs is if evidence of high crimes/misdemeanors would have been found by the Mueller team during the investigation, I'm of the belief it would have been his upmost responsibility to inform Congress and the AG...Which most likely would have invoked impeachment proceedings in the House.

As I've said, we will find out more when the AG debriefs Congress on the full report, and if we the general public will be able to see any of it...

Imho though, don't be suprise when this ends with no further action being taken.

Nancy Pelosi herself has recently stated that impeachment is off the table, pending outstanding evidence otherwise...
Do you really think someone of her caliber is left in the dark?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> That's your prerogative bud, and your fully entitled to it...
> 
> My thoughs is if evidence of high crimes/misdemeanors would have been found by the Mueller team during the investigation, I'm of the belief it would have been his upmost responsibility to inform Congress and the AG...Which most likely would have invoked impeachment proceedings in the House.
> 
> ...



You did say however, that you aren't certain whether it would be legally possible to indite a sitting president- there have even been press releases of the POTUS mulling over whether he would legally be able to pardon himself, which is you know...definitely what innocent people spend their time thinking about? 

The whole investigation has always struck me as rather strange anyway; in Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign he publicly thanked Russia for hacking his opponent, and called for them to do more. 
So an investigation was set to do what? To prove that he was _secretly_ doing the thing that he _openly did in public_?


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 23, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> That's your prerogative bud, and your fully entitled to it...
> 
> My thoughs is if evidence of high crimes/misdemeanors would have been found by the Mueller team during the investigation, I'm of the belief it would have been his upmost responsibility to inform Congress and the AG...Which most likely would have invoked impeachment proceedings in the House.
> 
> ...


It wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't found anything. They've screamed "RUSSIA COLLUSION!" for years, and now that the investigation is finished, we'll see if they actually found anything, or if this is indeed a witch hunt.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 23, 2019)

'No indictments' is still a huge blow to the whole Trump-Russia conspiracy


----------



## Pipistrele (Mar 23, 2019)

Hey, congratulations to Mueller on finishing his project! I hope he'll get a good rest and spend some time with his family, or some other cool thing.

(Who is he by the way?)


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 23, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Hey, congratulations to Mueller on finishing his project! I hope he'll get a good rest and spend some time with his family or something.
> 
> (Who is he by the way?)



Someone who will be totally irrelevant in a couple weeks


----------



## Pipistrele (Mar 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Someone who will be totally irrelevant in a couple weeks


Isn't that almost every human being though?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 23, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Isn't that almost every human being though?



Only people who contribute nothing to society


----------



## ZeroVoidTime (Mar 23, 2019)

Pipistrele said:


> Hey, congratulations to Mueller on finishing his project! I hope he'll get a good rest and spend some time with his family, or some other cool thing.
> 
> (Who is he by the way?)


He is basically the current head of the Russia Probe and basically checking whether or not there is collusion between Trump organization and Russia. (I.E. Whether or not Trump had and/or collusion with Russia meddle in the United States elections.)


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Only people who contribute nothing to society



If you think that the man's investigation has exonerated a politician you support, is this not an important contribution?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> If you think that the man's investigation has exonerated a politician you support, is this not an important contribution?



The post you are quoting was not referring to Muller i was just answering pipis suggestion that everyone is irrelevant.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> The post you are quoting was not referring to Muller i was just answering pipis suggestion that everyone is irrelevant.



Ah Okay, had my wires crossed there!


----------



## Pipistrele (Mar 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Only people who contribute nothing to society


But the term "contributing to society" is vastly up for interpretation, which makes for a shaky argument!


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 23, 2019)

Oh ye. Forgot to post this..


----------



## Frank Gulotta (Mar 23, 2019)

They ban conspiracy theory websites like infowars, should they also ban CNN? they've clearly created a big deal of emotional unrest among democrats


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 23, 2019)

The house of cards so many have built up around trump-Russia looks like its about to come crashing down, revealed as a total fabrication used to deny the reality of the 2016 election


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> The house of cards so many have built up around trump-Russia looks like its about to come crashing down, revealed as a total fabrication used to deny the reality of the 2016 election



I think you're exploiting 'no new indictments' for political gain here. 

The reality is that the American intelligence services concluded Russia attempted to influence the American election in 2016 in favour of Trump- who appeared on television and publicly thanked them for hacking his opponent, and that 6 of Donald Trump's aides _were indicted_ for crimes that included lobbying on behalf of foreign powers and campaign finance violation. 

'Can't quite prove that you wilfully colluded with a foreign power' is a _low bar_ to set for democracy, clearly the lesson that should be taken away from this is that surely western countries should be able to do democracy_ better than this_.


----------



## Alopecoid (Mar 23, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> 'No indictments' is still a huge blow to the whole Trump-Russia conspiracy



It could be that Mueller didn't try to indict Trump because of longstanding guidelines that a sitting president can't be indicted. 

As an aside, I don't understand those guidelines at all. If a sitting president can never be indicted, then they are above the law and can do anything, at least as long as they're in office. What is the rationale for that? It seems to fly in the face of  "equal justice under the law" which is theoretically the bedrock of our legal system (never plays out that way of course, but that's what we're supposed to be aiming for...)


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2019)

Alopecoid said:


> It could be that Mueller didn't try to indict Trump because of longstanding guidelines that a sitting president can't be indicted.
> 
> As an aside, I don't understand those guidelines at all. If a sitting president can never be indicted, then they are above the law and can do anything, at least as long as they're in office. What is the rationale for that? It seems to fly in the face of  "equal justice under the law" which is theoretically the bedrock of our legal system (never plays out that way of course, but that's what we're supposed to be aiming for...)



Perhaps that longstanding guideline will be something the Americans will decide to change in the future?

Speaking for other countries as well, I think it would be good if politicians were perhaps bound by law to issue public statements through official channels rather than personal social media accounts, so that professionalism and a certain 'stateliness' to political proceedings are preserved, and people don't regard places like twitter and facebook as useful places to read the news.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 23, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> 'Can't quite prove that you wilfully colluded with a foreign power' is a _low bar_ to set for democracy, clearly the lesson that should be taken away from this is that surely western countries should be able to do democracy_ better than this_.



That was the original claim, and the point of the entire investigation... and it was false...


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 24, 2019)

www.thedailybeast.com: Mueller Report: No Collusion Between Trump Team and Russia
news.yahoo.com: Mueller did not find Trump campaign conspired with Russia, attorney general says
www.politico.com: Mueller finds no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 24, 2019)

AG Barr has made the conclusion of the investigation public.

www.nbcnews.com: Mueller finds no proof of collusion with Russia or obstruction by Trump, AG Barr says evidence 'not sufficient' to prosecute

Hopefully the Left can move on...

I have my doubts though.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 24, 2019)




----------



## Ramjet (Mar 24, 2019)

Yakamaru said:


> www.thedailybeast.com: Mueller Report: No Collusion Between Trump Team and Russia
> news.yahoo.com: Mueller did not find Trump campaign conspired with Russia, attorney general says




Damn too slow...Lol


----------



## Telnac (Mar 24, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> If there is no russian collusion, then do you think trump will run for a second presidential term ?


Why wouldn't he? He's got my vote.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 24, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> Damn too slow...Lol


Way too slow, bruh.


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 24, 2019)

Telnac said:


> Why wouldn't he? He's got my vote.


Can we make a trade ? Trump for macron. Its a fair deal i swear !


----------



## larigot (Mar 24, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> Can we make a trade ? Trump for macron. Its a fair deal i swear !


A French Trump!? Et puis quoi encore!?


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 24, 2019)

larigot said:


> A French Trump!? Et puis quoi encore!?


No its not a french Trump, its more of a french [put here the most hated president in the history of usa]


----------



## Infrarednexus (Mar 24, 2019)

The real Mueller Report were the friends we all made along the way.


----------



## larigot (Mar 24, 2019)

renarddéfoncé said:


> No its not a french Trump, its more of a french [put here the most hated president in the history of usa]


[Hillary]


Infrarednexus said:


> The real Mueller Report were the friends we all made along the way.


That wholesomeness gives a warm feeling.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 24, 2019)

larigot said:


> [Hillary]


*cough*Wannabe-POTUS*cough*


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 24, 2019)

Why the hell did this even take 2 years lol
If Democrats don't simply admit they were wrong and move on, they are gonna have trouble with the general public if they obsess over it


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Why the hell did this even take 2 years lol
> If Democrats don't simply admit they were wrong and move on, they are gonna have trouble with the general public if they obsess over it



Well by the looks of social media nobody is gonna give up on it anytime soon! 2020 here we come.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Well by the looks of social media nobody is gonna give up on it anytime soon! 2020 here we come.




Yup, the butthurt is real...

Unbelievable the amount of people on the left calling for violence on reddit over this...


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 24, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> Yup, the butthurt is real...
> 
> Unbelievable the amount of people on the left calling for violence on reddit over this...


Twitter is worst imo. Trump litteraly tweeted « good morning » today and some peoples were losing their mind because of that !


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 24, 2019)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109622789189718016


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Why the hell did this even take 2 years lol
> If Democrats don't simply admit they were wrong and move on, they are gonna have trouble with the general public if they obsess over it



As someone who isn't on either 'side' of the American political spectrum, because I'm a foreigner, I think that this will never be resolved. 
Your man stood in front of a crowd and thanked Russia for hacking his rival. There's not really any returning from that. 

The worst part is, I feel many of you, yes those of you reading this now, would not mind if they were in cahoots with one another. :\


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 24, 2019)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1109622789189718016




OMG!!!

Nothing burger!!!LMAO


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> As someone who isn't on either 'side' of the American political spectrum, because I'm a foreigner, I think that this will never be resolved.
> Your man stood in front of a crowd and thanked Russia for hacking his rival. There's not really any returning from that.
> 
> The worst part is, I feel many of you, yes those of you reading this now, would not mind if they were in cahoots with one another. :\




He made that comment in jest, or at least in a way that left that with enough plausible deniability to be in jest
He wasn't President when he said it either, nor ever had a sit down with any Russian's to such.

If his comments were illegal, you damn well know Mueller would have had enough evidence to convict, he doesn't....

It's over....

Now will the Left ever grow up and let this go?
Probably not from what I've been seeing in these last couple hours after this bombshell dropped


----------



## Ginseng (Mar 24, 2019)

The liberals can’t get over it


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> He made that comment in jest, or at least in a way that left that with enough plausible deniability to be in jest
> He wasn't President when he said it either, nor ever had a sit down with any Russian's to such.
> 
> If his comments were illegal, you damn well know Mueller would have had enough evidence to convict, he doesn't....
> ...



If his joke left you thinking about the words 'plausible deniability' then you see my point about how that was a step beyond the point of no return. 


Can I ask you whether you would actually care if the trump campaign had colluded with the kremlin?


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> If his joke left you thinking about the words 'plausible deniability' then you see my point about how that was a step beyond the point of no return.
> 
> 
> Can I ask you whether you would actually care if the trump campaign had colluded with the kremlin?




There was no collusion found by a special council after a 2 year investigation, so it's a rhetorical question and just bait at this point


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> There was no collusion found by a special council after a 2 year investigation, so it's a rhetorical question and just bait at this point



Are you capable of saying that, had it happened, you would not have approved of it?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> The worst part is, I feel many of you, yes those of you reading this now, would not mind if they were in cahoots with one another. :\



Yeah we do care, but it was a bogus claim from the start and we said as much. Trump being glad they got exposed =/= collusion 

The way it's looking now the left isn't just gonna admit defeat and let it go, and its gonna cost them


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Are you capable of saying that, had it happened, you would not have approved of it?



Yes, I would not have approved of collusion if it were real


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Yeah we do care, but it was a bogus claim from the start and we said as much. Trump being glad they got exposed =/= collusion
> 
> The way it's looking now the left isn't just gonna admit defeat and let it go, and its gonna cost them


If they can't let it go and continue down the path of derangement, it's going to cost them the 2020 election

maybe not by Trump but by a republican candidate


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Yes, I would not have approved of collusion if it were real



Well done. 

Do you view the indictment of 6 Trump aides for crimes such as lobbying on behalf of foreign powers and campaign finance law violations as a 'defeat for the left'?
Or do you view it as a victory for justice- something that is not affiliated with either the American right or left?


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Yeah we do care, but it was a bogus claim from the start and we said as much. Trump being glad they got exposed =/= collusion
> 
> The way it's looking now the left isn't just gonna admit defeat and let it go, and its gonna cost them



Yup BIG time!

I've heard many on the Left that are just tired of this, want to move on, but the base is relentless on kicking and screaming their way into irrelevancy.

If they could put that energy into a candidate that could actually beat Donald, it would serve them much better then what their currently doing.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 24, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> Yup BIG time!
> 
> I've heard many on the Left that are just tired of this, want to move on, but the base is relentless on kicking and screaming their way into irrelevancy.
> 
> If they could put that energy into a candidate that could actually beat Donald, it would serve them much better then what their currently doing.



4chan /pol/ shills be channeling their energy on Andrew Yang
The amount of memes cannot save the Yang Gang


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 24, 2019)

Out of interest how many of you hang out on 4chan?


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Out of interest how many of you hang out on 4chan?


I went once, saw a bunch of weird pictures, left and never came back


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Out of interest how many of you hang out on 4chan?


It's been years
Furry shit is better


----------



## larigot (Mar 24, 2019)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> maybe not by Trump but by a republican candidate


I don't think there are any republicans with a spine to mount a primary challenge against Trump.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 24, 2019)

larigot said:


> I don't think there are any republicans with a spine to mount a primary challenge against Trump.


I wish you were right but I think there will be at least one. It'll be a joke that'll quickly be overshadowed by the primary election but the Never Trumpers will put one up. They hate him too much to let his nomination go unopposed.


----------



## Shadowprints (Mar 24, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> So is this going to be the end?


Not at all my friend, They're already calling for futher investigations, denying the findings, demanding to see the full report (which is fine by me) and whatever else they can to discredit the findings. The President will never not be under investigation, and it's a shame. I hope the next democratic president that comes into office gets the exact same treatment where they are investigated, as well as everyone around them.  My problem is the never ending attacks on the president and constant attempts to discredit him.
I hope that this is the end. I'm surprised that the investigation didn't carry into the 2020 election, so I kinda respect Mueller for wrapping it up with a year and a half to spare. But now I worry about what all these psycho dems are gonna do to combat this.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 24, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> So is this going to be the end?


 
Now they will order an investigation of the Muller investigation and then an investigation of the investigation of the Muller investigation.

He has a few other issues like with the SDNY but his legal case is very solid for those.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Mar 24, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Now they will order an investigation of the Muller investigation and then an investigation of the investigation of the Muller investigation.


And I will personally investigate all these investigations for the sake of investigation.


----------



## 1234554321 (Mar 24, 2019)

There's only one Muller I give a shit about


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 24, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> And I will personally investigate all these investigations for the sake of investigation.


When will be charge these people for treason?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 24, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Well done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I view them as mistakes by those individuals.

What's interesting are the cases where the only crime was lying to the FBI. They wouldnt have been put in a position with that risk if there was no bogus investigation in the first place. (Michael Flynn comes to mind)

There is such thing as a perjury trap.
Yet another reason why you don't ever speak to the police without council. guilty or innocent.


----------



## Pipistrele (Mar 24, 2019)

..I noticed that the argument suddenly turned into critique of leftists, with same 3-4 people liking every "filthy left" post. That's pretty much FAF 101, lol


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 25, 2019)

Despite all the shouting of Trump colluding with Russia/Putin for 2 years.. Here we are. With those claims/allegations being false and wrong. 

People need to own up to the facts, and learn from their mistakes if they actually want a chance of winning the next elections.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

On the one hand Trump had obvious business dealings and has been surprisingly cozy with Russia, which is by and large not one our allies. And it's beyond a doubt whether he colluded or not that Russia actively tried to influence US elections to get him in office.

On the other hand he's already in office and their isn't substantial evidence to address the matter.

It's time to move on and focus on 2020 and running an actually decent candidate instead Betogodwhy.

Because America doesn't need 4 more years of vague threats being used to rally a far right political base, and this shit;
www.google.com: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?


----------



## CertifiedCervine (Mar 25, 2019)

100th post lol


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> On the one hand Trump had obvious business dealings and has been surprisingly cozy with Russia, which is by and large not one our allies.



Do you know how much buisness we do with China??? They aren't one of our allies either. That is a silly argument.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Do you know how much buisness we do with China??? They aren't one of our allies either. That is a silly argument.


Trump had direct business ties with Russia and was trying to negotiate a hotel in the country not long before his bid.

That's called a conflict of interests. 

Or did you not know Trump was a wealthy businessman with a golden toilet before he went into politics?

I tgink the most blatant scam he's been pulling is using his personal resorts and hotels for housing and recreation, and billing the secret service for rooms and supplies. While the business is technically under his son's name, its obviously going straight back to him at the end of the term. So he's pretty blatantly using the secret service to funnel our tax dollars into his personal business. 

What a swell president.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Trump had direct business ties with Russia and was trying to negotiate a hotel in the country not long before his bid.
> 
> That's called a conflict of interests.
> 
> ...



He cancelled those negotiations about the Moscow hotel before his bid anyway.

Conflict of intrest is one of the weakest claims against Trump.

Legally he does not even have to divest himself at all.

You cant force public figures to abandon all of their financial and buisness interests without violating their rights.

Every president uses taxpayer dollars for housing and recreation in office that is not news lol.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> He cancelled those negotiations about the Moscow hotel before his bid anyway.
> 
> Conflict of intrest is one of the weakest claims against Trump.
> 
> ...


Yet funneling federal funds into your own private business is in fact illegal. 



> The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.



I really hope I don't have to explain how quid-pro-quo bullshit works in regards to Russia?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Yet funneling federal funds into your own private business is in fact illegal.



That is embezzling... he is not doing that. Unless you have some vital inside information that nobody else knows. Either that or you are making shit up and talking out your ass.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I really hope I don't have to explain how quid-pro-quo bullshit works in regards to Russia?



Muller JUST discovered that there was no collusion. That includes promising things for political favors. Muller was looking for exactly that sort of thing. And he found nothing. You got nothin here.

Unless you dispute his findings?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> That is embezzling... he is not doing that. Unless you have some vital inside information that nobody else knows. Either that or you are making shit up and talking out your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What he didn't find was hard evidence. But the pattern of behavior makes it likely. Finding evidence of something like that is next to impossible.

And what I am saying is that Trump is embezzling US funds through the secret service by charging them for rooms at his hotels and resorts which he visits frequently. But he found a legal loophole in that by transfering ownership of the company to his son, it isn't technically *his* company getting payed federal funds. But the company and the money in question will go back to Trump at the end of his term. In this way he can sidestep laws that would otherwise be grounds for impeachment while still making money off the taxpayers.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> What he didn't find was hard evidence. But the pattern of behavior makes it likely. Finding evidence of something like that is next to impossible.



If he did it, there would be evidence. Sounds like you are in denial.



Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> And what I am saying is that Trump is embezzling us funds through the secret service by charging them for rooms at his hotels in resorts which he visits frequently.



The president can do this it is not embezzling. They pay for hotel stays. Whether it is his hotel or a foreign one. Nothing wrong with this at all, every president does this. Did you not know this???

He can legally stay there whether or not his company is profiting from it. I know what you are trying to say and I am telling you it is not illegal or embezzling.

If you are looking for crimes keep looking.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> What he didn't find was hard evidence. But the pattern of behavior makes it likely. Finding evidence of something like that is next to impossible.
> 
> And what I am saying is that Trump is embezzling US funds through the secret service by charging them for rooms at his hotels and resorts which he visits frequently. But he found a legal loophole in that by transfering ownership of the company to his son, it isn't technically *his* company getting payed federal funds. But the company and the money in question will go back to Trump at the end of his term. In this way he can sidestep laws that would otherwise be grounds for impeachment while still making money off the taxpayers.



Let me be clear as to why this is not illegal. If the government is paying your transportation costs do you really have to make 100% sure they they are not benefiting from it? 
If you own stock in the car service company you use that taxpayers pay for, are you embezzling?
If you fuel your plane with fuel from a company you hold stock in are you embezzling?
Can you get food for state dinners you buy with taxpayer money from companies that you invest in? 
How about investing in companies that get buisness from working for companies that provide something that is taxpayer paid for?
Do you understand how silly that kind of divestment from everything is? You just can't expect them to do it.
Do you want more examples of possible examples of your version if "embezzlement"
Shall I bring up a list of all the presidential taxpayer funded luxuries and list off all of the businesses that make money off them? Or do you get it?
You are trying to tell me that being involved with *any *of them is embezzlement. That's nuts.

(Just as a side note, the first family still buys their own groceries technically, but anything work related is taxpayers)


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> What he didn't find was hard evidence. But the pattern of behavior makes it likely. Finding evidence of something like that is next to impossible.
> 
> And what I am saying is that Trump is embezzling US funds through the secret service by charging them for rooms at his hotels and resorts which he visits frequently. But he found a legal loophole in that by transfering ownership of the company to his son, it isn't technically *his* company getting payed federal funds. But the company and the money in question will go back to Trump at the end of his term. In this way he can sidestep laws that would otherwise be grounds for impeachment while still making money off the taxpayers.





Not illegal, because as you said his son has command and control of his company.

Dick Cheney made millions while in office through defence contracts that were awarded to Halliburton, also not illegal.As he was no longer in control of the company, but still had a shit ton of shares and stock options.

Look, the leader in the House has said herself that impeachment is off the table, the Mueller findings make that even further unlikely.

You guys have 20 months, put that energy into a candidate that you think can beat Don.Or keep this up and guarantee Trump gets an easy slide back into the White House in 2020.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> Not illegal, because as you said his son has command and control of his company.
> 
> Dick Cheney made millions while in office through defence contracts that were awarded to Halliburton, also not illegal.
> As he was no longer in control of the company, but still had a shit ton of shares and stock options.
> ...


And Dick Cheney got us in a pointless war in Iraq that got US troops killed.

It's not technically illegal because it's a loophole. One that was in both case purposefully exploited in order for government officials to personally profit off of our tax dollars.

For people who claim to be in favor of minimal government and loathsome of taxes, y'all don't seem to mind *your *politicians running off with everyone's money.

This is litteraly a work around for deliberate embezzlement of taxpayer money, and y'all want to act like it ain't shit because he's your boy.

Wake up and stop getting fucking robbed.

If I were to open a catering business, become president, transfer my catering business to a relative, and then make that catering business the exclusive caterer for the White House, it would be perfectly analogous to what Trump is doing with the secret service. It would be perfectly legal, despite it being clear embezzlement. Wouldn't make it right or ethical. So why are y'all seriously giving a millionaire with a golden fucking toilet a pass on using his power as a politician to enrich himself? I thought Trump was supposed to "drain the swamp" of corrupt politicians, but he's litteraly doing the kind of shit you claim to hate.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> If he did it, there would be evidence. Sounds like you are in denial.



Almost forgot, but do you honestly think criminals leave evidence like magic breadcrumbs? There are myriad unsolved crimes explicitly because no evidence could be found to bring about an indictment, and THIS is the argument you want to go with? Grow up, and realize that the world isn't a perfect place. The bad guys don't always get got, and they often get away with their bullshit.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> And Dick Cheney got us in a pointless war in Iraq that got US troops killed.
> 
> It's not technically illegal because it's a loophole. One that was in both case purposefully exploited in order for government officials to personally profit off of our tax dollars.
> 
> ...




Because most people that climb to political power have business sense, and have investments that yeah, for sure, probably very well could mean they will profit while in office.
It works on both sides of the aisle.
I have no issue with that, that's capitalism my friend, but we all know your stance on that one

Trump has way more in common with what I want in a political candidate that I would vote for vs anyone of the Dem's...
I lean Right, of course I have bias, we all do.I'm just big enough to admit it.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> Because most people that climb to political power have business sense, and have investments that yeah, for sure, probably very well could mean they will profit while in office.It works on both sides of the aisle.
> I have no issue with that, that's capitalism my friend, but we all know your stance on that one
> 
> Trump has way more in common with what I want in a political candidate that I would vote for vs anyone of the Dem's...
> I lean Right, of course I have bias, we all do.I'm just big enough to admit it.


Corruption that gets US soldiers killed is ok?

I'm fucking speechless.


----------



## larigot (Mar 25, 2019)

The Don may not have colluded with Russia, but he's not off the hook yet.

Ungoing investigations concerning Trump are, amongst others:

New York tax schemes.
Trump foundation illegal conduct.
Illegal immigrants working on his golf courses.
Inflating his organisation's assets to insurance companies.
Suspicious funding for his inauguration.
Hush money payments.
Roger Stones witness tampering and communications with wikileaks. 
And there are a bunch of lawsuits happening as well, including one about violating the emoluments clause with his Washington DC hotel.

And obviously there are many committees in congress looking into his finances and foreign affairs.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Corruption that gets US soldiers killed is ok?
> 
> I'm fucking speechless.




The Iraqi war was bullshit for sure, and I was no fan of the Bush administration, but yeah...People profit on such companies that supply those contracts, that in of itself doesn't equal corruption. 

I'm sure if I did some digging, I'm more then certain I could find sitting officials on the Dem's side at the time that held Halliburton shares...


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> The Iraqi war was bullshit for sure, and I was no fan of the Bush administration, but yeah...People profit on such companies that supply those contracts, that in of itself doesn't equal corruption.
> 
> I'm sure if I did some digging, I'm more then certain I could find sitting officials on the Dem's side at the time that held Halliburton shares...


I sometimes forget this site misses my rants about dems because I keep most of my commie shit off of here. 

Trust me when I say that I am equally judgemental of Democrat corruption. 

But when your defense to "your specific politician you are fawning over is corrupt" is "well there are corrupt politicians on your side" you've reached a point at which you are arguing in favor of corruption. 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to flip parties, I'm suggesting that backing a blatantly corrupt politician who has repeatedly betrayed everything he claimed to stand for except his more biggoted or ill advised policies who pretended to represent the everyman despite having been born with a silver spoon and lived a life of wealth; might have been a bad idea, and you might want to consider supporting another candidate on your side of the isle.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I sometimes forget this site misses my rants about dems because I keep most of my commie shit off of here.
> 
> Trust me when I say that I am equally judgemental of Democrat corruption.
> 
> ...




I don't see how investments that prove to be profitable in office as corruption in and of itself, so we already differ on what we see as acceptable from the get go.

I don't see anyone else, especially on the Republican side that I would stand behind.

Call it bias I guess, we all have it.You'd be lying to yourself if you claim otherwise.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> I don't see how investments that prove to be profitable in office as corruption in and of itself, so we already differ on what we see as acceptable from the get go.
> 
> I don't see anyone else, especially on the Republican side that I would stand behind.
> 
> Call it bias I guess, we all have it.You'd be lying to yourself if you claim otherwise.


So lying about WMDs in order to justify a bullshit war that directly lines your pockets is not "conveniently having stock", it's directing public policy for personal gain. That's corruption. Corruption that cost US soldiers their lives. 

These people didn't have this stock and luck into money, they have purposefully made decisions to direct money to their advantage from federal funds. 

The Iraq war wasn't someone's lucky coincidence, it was an example of consent being manufactured for a war to line the pockets of the wealthy. 

Trump's secret service expenditure isn't a happy accident, he's pumping us for all we are worth.

This is litteraly politicians abusing their power to get rich. 

But I guess it only matters when its the other side of the isle doing it right?

Over 100,000 people died in the Iraq war that the American people were duped into in order to line Dick's pockets. Over 60,000 were civilians. That was the price of Dick Cheney's retirement plan. 

The fact you think that is how capitalism *should *work is the strongest reminder of why I am no capitalist.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> So lying about WMDs in order to justify a bullshit war that directly lines your pockets is not "conveniently having stock", it's directing public policy for personal gain. That's corruption. Corruption that cost US soldiers their lives.
> 
> These people didn't have this stock and luck into money, they have purposefully made decisions to direct money to their advantage from federal funds.
> 
> ...




Dick was CEO of Haliburton before he held office, he kept stock and was issued stock options, it comes with the territory...
I also already told you I was no fan of the war, or the Bush administration...

As far as Trump's secret service goings, you do realize they HAVE to go with him right?
It's not like he can tell them to fuck off while he goes off the lawns of the White House.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> Dick was CEO of Haliburton before he held office, he kept stock and was issued stock options, it comes with the territory...
> I also already told you I was no fan of the war, or the Bush administration...
> 
> As far as Trump's secret service goings, you do realize they HAVE to go with him right?
> It's not like he can tell them to fuck off while he goes off the lawns of the White House.


And yet he keeps fucking off to play golf on his personal resort and charges the secret service for rooms a carts. That's nothing to speak of the fact his family is objectively less safe at Trump tower, but he keeps some portion there to justify the security detail. 

And it's not like alternatives recreational facilities don't exist. There is a golf course owned by the federal government he could go to that wouldn't incur the same degree of costs, and wouldn't funnel money into his own private business. 

Trump also holds functions with foreign leaders at his private businesses instead of at the White House, allowing him to direct business to his establishments through his political position. Which would again be illegal if he hadn't shifted the ownership to his son, which will be reversed once he leaves office.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> The Iraqi war was bullshit for sure, and I was no fan of the Bush administration, but yeah...People profit on such companies that supply those contracts, that in of itself doesn't equal corruption.
> 
> I'm sure if I did some digging, I'm more then certain I could find sitting officials on the Dem's side at the time that held Halliburton shares...



Ramjet, maybe you should take a step back from 'the argument' and rooting for who you perceive as your side (you live in Canada, neither side cares about *your* interests), and think about whether you actually morally support what you're defending.

You seem to believe that the Iraq war was a needless conflict, started by politicians who wanted to profiteer from it. If you really believe that, why doesn't that idea make you physically sick? How could it ever be excused, regardless of the stripes of who's doing it?



Anon Raccoon said:


> I view them as mistakes by those individuals.
> 
> What's interesting are the cases where the only crime was lying to the FBI. They wouldnt have been put in a position with that risk if there was no bogus investigation in the first place. (Michael Flynn comes to mind)
> 
> ...



Campaign finance law violation, millions of dollars in tax evasion, mere 'mistakes'?

Are you able to say that those things are serious crime, and that investigations which uncover serious crimes are clearly necessary investigations?


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Ramjet, maybe you should take a step back from 'the argument' and rooting for who you perceive as your side (you live in Canada, neither side cares about *your* interests), and think about whether you actually morally support what you're defending.
> 
> You seem to believe that the Iraq war was a needless conflict, started by politicians who wanted to profiteer from it. If you really believe that, why doesn't that idea make you physically sick? How could it ever be excused, regardless of the stripes of who's doing it?
> 
> ...




You weigh in on these matters as well more often then not, which is your right, as it is mine...

It was a needless stupid war that set out the apsolute shitstorm we see in the Middle East today with the power vacuum that was left in it's wake...
Do you honestly think peons like you or me really have a say in such matters though?Like really, truthfully, do you?

Politics is a dirty game, always has been, always will be.The environment alone breeds it...
The majority of politicians get there from having money, and the vast connections that come with said money.

Basically every 4 years peons like you and me get to decide who outta the select few of said money people are what we decide is the least shittyest out of the bunch, they're all shit Fallow.
My personal choice for least shittyest just so happens to be Trump atm


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> You way in on these matters as well more often then not, which is your right, as it is mine...
> 
> It was a needless stupid war that set out the apsolute shitstorm we see in the Middle East today with the power vacuum that was left in it's wake...
> Do you honestly think peons like you or me really have a say in such matters though?Like really, truthfully, do you?
> ...


If my humble opinion means anything, Trump is a lesser evil then Hillary or Bernie. Real question though is whats gonna happen in 2020.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> If my humble opinion means anything, Trump is a lesser evil then Hillary or Bernie. Real question though is whats gonna happen in 2020.




Keeping in line with the DNC's history of favouring a candidate over actual votes, Joe Biden vs Donald Trump (most probable)...

If he decides to run that is


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> Keeping in line with the DNC's history of favouring a candidate over actual votes, Joe Biden vs Donald Trump...
> 
> If he decides to run that is


long time from now till primaries next year


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> You weigh in on these matters as well more often then not, which is your right, as it is mine...
> 
> It was a needless stupid war that set out the apsolute shitstorm we see in the Middle East today with the power vacuum that was left in it's wake...
> Do you honestly think peons like you or me really have a say in such matters though?Like really, truthfully, do you?
> ...



I agree you should contribute to political discussions; I think _everybody_ has a responsibility to, but I am cautious about treating political discussions like a sports-match where what's important to the supporters isn't how well the game is played, but _whether their team wins_. 

I am worried that, if you're prepared to say you don't really care about important moral problems because 'Politics is a dirty game' then it shows you're treating politics like a sports match, and are willing to put other people's interests (*or maybe even your own!*) under the bus provided it gives you the satisfaction of 'beating the other team'. 

I don't know enough about the Iraq war to know if it's true that politicians deliberately concocted a pointless conflict so that they could make money out of it. You seem to believe that though, but are willing to overlook that sin _because you don't expect any better of them_?

It seems to me that you were on the _cusp_ of being able to form a moral argument that subversion of national interests in order to make money is immoral, and that if it doesn't count as corruption, then it definitely should. 
I think that should be the conclusion we reach, right?


----------



## larigot (Mar 25, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> If my humble opinion means anything, Trump is a lesser evil then Hillary or Bernie. Real question though is whats gonna happen in 2020.


Bernie, evil!? Bernie is a Disney princess. Proof below ↓


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Mar 25, 2019)

larigot said:


> Bernie, evil!? Bernie is a Disney princess. Proof below ↓


now now lets not forget the fact disney is no joke one of the darkest companies out there. That is a pretty accurate comparison though, socialism and disney.
But lets not get the thread derailed and a certain admin "threadkiller" comes in.


----------



## Infrarednexus (Mar 25, 2019)

larigot said:


> Bernie, evil!? Bernie is a Disney princess. Proof below ↓


He payed that bird to land there....


----------



## larigot (Mar 25, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> now now lets not forget the fact disney is no joke one of the darkest companies out there. That is a pretty accurate comparison though, socialism and disney.
> But lets not get the thread derailed and a certain admin "threadkiller" comes in.


Disney is so capitalist it basically competes with itself. They are releasing three big blockbusters in the same period.


----------



## renarddéfoncé (Mar 25, 2019)

larigot said:


> Bernie, evil!? Bernie is a Disney princess. Proof below ↓


Absolutely everyone in this picture look high ! Lmao


----------



## Captain TrashPanda (Mar 25, 2019)

larigot said:


> Disney is so capitalist it basically competes with itself. They are releasing three big blockbusters in the same period.


you either have some serious inside Intel or talking out of your ass, not too sure which.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2019)

Infrarednexus said:


> He payed that bird to land there....



I literally only noticed the bird because you pointed it out. x3


----------



## CrookedCroc (Mar 25, 2019)

Imagine voting for Trump again when you could be voting for John McAfee instead


----------



## Infrarednexus (Mar 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I literally only noticed the bird because you pointed it out. x3


Because I'm the bird expert


----------



## larigot (Mar 25, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> you either have some serious inside Intel or talking out of your ass, not too sure which.


I'll share you my top secret serious intel that shows they are releasing multiple big budget flicks this year:
screenrant.com: Disney's Upcoming Movie Releases - From 2019 to 2023


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Captain TrashPanda said:


> long time from now till primaries next year





Fallowfox said:


> I agree you should contribute to political discussions; I think _everybody_ has a responsibility to, but I am cautious about treating political discussions like a sports-match where what's important to the supporters isn't how well the game is played, but _whether their team wins_.
> 
> I am worried that, if you're prepared to say you don't really care about important moral problems because 'Politics is a dirty game' then it shows you're treating politics like a sports match, and are willing to put other people's interests (*or maybe even your own!*) under the bus provided it gives you the satisfaction of 'beating the other team'.
> 
> ...




I agree the game should be played better, but it won't...

Obama came on the stage with the promise of exiting pointless never ending wars (I actually believe he wanted too), but what really happened was an expansion to said campaigns around the globe, especially with his increase in drone strikes...

The Pentagon has big money contracts, and those big money weapons developers like to get paid.
Who do you think really has more influence?Big weapons industries that have the ear of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that then go to advise the President on military matters?Or the common American?
I would like it to be the latter, but we all know it's the former.

Trump was honestly just a big fuck you to the entire political establishment, pretty much the biggest reason I like him...
America literally voted in their crazy loadmouth Uncle to be President over the career politicians that most people have lost hope in.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> I agree the game should be played better, but it won't...
> 
> Obama came on the stage with the promise of exiting pointless never ending wars (I actually believe he wanted too), but what really happened was an expansion to said campaigns around the globe, especially with his increase in drone strikes...
> 
> ...



If you don't want the military industrial complex to call the shots, then I think an important first step isn't simply giving up and saying that it will always be that way anyway? 

I'm intrigued that the biggest reason you like trump is because you think he is a 'fuck you'. Do you actually support any of his ideas? Do you think if he had very different ideas, but people still perceived him as a 'fuck you' that you would have still supported him?


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> If you don't want the military industrial complex to call the shots, then I think an important first step isn't simply giving up and saying that it will always be that way anyway?
> 
> I'm intrigued that the biggest reason you like trump is because you think he is a 'fuck you'. Do you actually support any of his ideas? Do you think if he had very different ideas, but people still perceived him as a 'fuck you' that you would have still supported him?




The wall? No

His trade war with China? Yes

His stance on immigration? Mostly

His performance on economy? So far not bad, could change. (Watch out next year as the bond yeild just inverted Friday and again today)

You know I wasn't happy about Dodd-Frank regulations being rolled back, but who actually think called the shots on that one?
*cough* WallStreet *cough*

To answer your question if I have hope that people could actually bring forth change that could actually dethrone big money in politics?No I don't think that will ever happen, sadly...
At least not in our lifetimes.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

So what you are saying is you got tired of corrupt politicians bankrolled by rich millionaires, so you backed one of the rich millionaires who was doing it. That sounds rational. Trump has proven to be everything institutional politics has always been, he just sold himself as an everyman because he had no prior history as a politician. Who took the same kind of campaign donations (bribes) as the rest of them, and has abused his position for personal financial gain. He has made good on his promises to his donors, including advancing the policies of an anti-LGBT hate group that supported his bid. He's made wild promises that are woefully unrealistic including the boondoggle of a wall, and flip flopping on North Korea so bad he removed sanctions he had imposed on the country within two days of them going up. 

He's only served as a spiritual "fuck you" to the establishment, while in all actuality re-enforcing the establishment and expanding upon its corruption. 

And packaged with all of that was him wipping up the far right to form a base of support, which has led to a rise in far right violence and inspired multiple terror attacks. 

But you are blindly clinging to his facade because you don't want to admit you got conned by a rich twat who has taken pretty much all of his supporters for one hell of a ride.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> So what you are saying is you got tired of corrupt politicians bankrolled by rich millionaires, so you backed one of the rich millionaires who was doing it. That sounds rational. Trump has proven to be everything institutional politics has always been, he just sold himself as an everyman because he had no prior history as a politician. Who took the same kind of campaign donations (bribes) as the rest of them, and has abused his position for personal financial gain. He has made good on his promises to his donors, including advancing the policies of an anti-LGBT hate group that supported his bid. He's made wild promises that are woefully unrealistic including the boondoggle of a wall, and flip flopping on North Korea so bad he removed sanctions he had imposed on the country within two days of them going up.
> 
> He's only served as a spiritual "fuck you" to the establishment, while in all actuality re-enforcing the establishment and expanding upon its corruption.
> 
> ...




I'm not one for your tin foil hat conspiracy theories, but I will say the entire US political establishment has taken everyone of you for a ride for waaaaay longer then Trump's been in office.

Enjoy the decline Misha, it ain't going to get any better.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Almost forgot, but do you honestly think criminals leave evidence like magic breadcrumbs? There are myriad unsolved crimes explicitly because no evidence could be found to bring about an indictment, and THIS is the argument you want to go with? Grow up, and realize that the world isn't a perfect place. The bad guys don't always get got, and they often get away with their bullshit.



Have you considered.... maybe.... TRUMP DIDNT COLLUDE AND THATS WHY THERES NO EVIDENCE


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> I'm not one for your tin foil hat conspiracy theories, but I will say the entire US political establishment has taken everyone of you for a ride for waaaaay longer then Trump's been in office.
> 
> Enjoy the decline Misha, it ain't going to get any better.



This is the problem Ramjet. You don't actually seem to care _at all _about the corruption that you claim you supported ending. 

You only seem to care about 'ha ha I win you lose'... :S


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

You seem to be confusing 'politicians with buisness interests' with 'corruption'
Why should we force every politician to divest themself from the entire economy?
In fact _more_ politicians should be invested in the economy, that way they may pass laws that actually help buisness, and the stock market, and therefore the people as a whole.


----------



## larigot (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You seem to be confusing 'politicians with buisness interests' with 'corruption'
> Why should we force every politician to divest themself from the entire economy?
> In fact _more_ politicians should be invested in the economy, that way they may pass laws that actually help buisness, and the stock market, and therefore the people as a whole.


I mean, Trump drastically raised the prices for hishotelrooms in DC, right after he got elected. Doesn't that raise an eyebrow?


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Ramjet556 said:


> I'm not one for your tin foil hat conspiracy theories, but I will say the entire US political establishment has taken everyone of you for a ride for waaaaay longer then Trump's been in office.
> 
> Enjoy the decline Misha, it ain't going to get any better.


Would you care to explain what part of that post is a conspiracy theory?


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> This is the problem Ramjet. You don't actually seem to care _at all _about the corruption that you claim you supported ending.
> 
> You only seem to care about 'ha ha I win you lose'... :S




¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not hopeful for the future Fallow, I'm really not...

I've already stated that I view the political system as mostly theater anyway, I really think it matters not who gets in...
I guess we all have our bias though on which one we choose to lead us down the toilet bowl


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You seem to be confusing 'politicians with buisness interests' with 'corruption'
> Why should we force every politician to divest themself from the entire economy?
> In fact _more_ politicians should be invested in the economy, that way they may pass laws that actually help buisness, and the stock market, and therefore the people as a whole.



Helping business isn't the same as helping the people of course. 

Let's say that in the future the woman who owns the Macdonald's brand becomes president. She decrees that state functions shall serve Macdonald branded food, and begins rescinding healthy school meal programs that penalise junk food. 
When campaigners object, she makes a public announcement that the 'science is not settled' whether saturated fat causes obesity, and states that since fast food is an important part of the economy, it is un-American to oppose serving it to children. 

All sound a bit too far fetched?
The real sugar and oil industries are actually worse than that: Sugar marketing - Wikipedia


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Let's say that in the future the woman who owns the Macdonald's brand becomes president. She decrees that state functions shall serve Macdonald branded food, and begins rescinding healthy school meal programs that penalise junk food.
> When campaigners object, she makes a public announcement that the 'science is not settled' whether saturated fat causes obesity, and states that since fast food is an important part of the economy, it is un-American to oppose serving it to children.



This is government overreach, the government doesn't get to decide what your child eats. Your entire frame of mind is wrong. It is not the job of the government to feed its people. You could... idk... PACK YOUR KID A LUNCH if you dont trust cafeteria food. It is perfectly reasonable to distrust cafeteria food anyway.

This has nothing to do with the Muller report disproving Russian collusion btw.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 25, 2019)

I think this is the end of the whole russian probe thing, I think it ends here. I don't really like politics, and when people ask me what I am I don't really have an answer. All I can say for sure is I hope my very first vote next year makes a difference, because these 4 years with trump have only proven that america made a horrible, horrible decision. I'd like it a lot if there were polticians who actually wanted to help the people, politicians have been known to suck ass, so I feel like I'm asking for a tall order.

I don't really want a president who calls nazis "very fine people" or who thinks its okay to lock up a bunch of kids in mini deportation camps away from their parents. Idk what I want, but I know for certain I don't want _that_.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> This is government overreach, the government doesn't get to decide what your child eats. Your entire frame of mind is wrong. It is not the job of the government to feed its people. You could... idk... PACK YOUR KID A LUNCH if you dont trust cafeteria food. It is perfectly reasonable to distrust cafeteria food anyway.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the Muller report disproving Russian collusion btw.


Not everyone can afford to pack their kids a lunch. During the recession me and my family were homeless and had to squat or couch surf to keep a roof over our heads. EBT and what money covered breakfast and dinner to some extent, but I was dependant on the free school lunch program for lunch and sometimes breakfast. A program making McDonald's the formal provider of school lunches would have left me the options of eating as little as one meal a day if I wanted to avoid the myriad health risks of their food. Malnutrition like that has a proven negative impact on school performance, which in turn effects educational standards of society, and college acceptance and completion rates. 

And I wasn't the only one up shit creek during the recession. 

Further, America currently has a food insecurity crisis because a large portion of Americans are dependent on Food stamps and charity programs for food, or are borderline between being able to afford food and other basic necesities. Roughly 11% of households in the US are currently food insecure as of 2018. That's millions of Americans who could be negatively impacted by programs that shift current food assistance programs to a pro McDonalds model. 

If such an act of blatant corruption were to occur and get waved away, it would gravely worsen the obesity crisis, thus driving up healthcare costs and reducing the buying power of consumers. Wgen consumers don't buy, businesses don't make money, and stock prices drop. The only economic winner in such a scenario is McDonald's. The rest of us lose monetarily, physically, and in the long term as an economy on the whole.

This is why allowing politicians to abuse public office for private gain is so dangerous, because it gives companies monopoly power without having to actually grow as a company to attain it.

A McDonald's president could also push for legistlation that would screw over their competitors, while purposefully including loopholes to protect their interests. 

All of this could be made technically legal by shifting ownership of the company until the end of however many terms President McDonald's serves.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> This is government overreach, the government doesn't get to decide what your child eats. Your entire frame of mind is wrong. It is not the job of the government to feed its people. You could... idk... PACK YOUR KID A LUNCH if you dont trust cafeteria food. It is perfectly reasonable to distrust cafeteria food anyway.
> 
> This has nothing to do with the Muller report disproving Russian collusion btw.



Seriosuly??? There's nothing wrong with the government feeding hungry children, much less poor kids. I'm of the opinion that no child in america should ever go hungry, and if the government has the resources to make sure that kids here don't ever skip out on any meals I think they should provide breakfast, lunch, and dinner for every kid in america, Social status be damned. If the government thinks it's not their job to feed hungry kids, than they're wrong. It is very much their job, and the country would be a lot better if every child got their food when they were supposed to.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Not everyone can afford to pack their kids a lunch. During the recession me and my family were homeless and had to squat or couch surf to keep a roof over our heads. EBT and what money covered breakfast and dinner to some extent, but I was dependant on the free school lunch program for lunch and sometimes breakfast. A program making McDonald's the formal provider of school lunches would have left me the options of eating as little as one meal a day if I wanted to avoid the myriad health risks of their food. Malnutrition like that has a proven negative impact on school performance, which in turn effects educational standards of society, and college acceptance and completion rates.
> 
> And I wasn't the only one up shit creek during the recession.
> 
> ...





Liseran Thistle said:


> Seriosuly??? There's nothing wrong with the government feeding hungry children, much less poor kids. I'm of the opinion that no child in america should ever go hungry, and if the government has the resources to make sure that kids here don't ever skip out on any meals I think they should provide breakfast, lunch, and dinner for every kid in america, Social status be damned. If the government thinks it's not their job to feed hungry kids, than they're wrong. It is very much their job, and the country would be a lot better if every child got their food when they were supposed to.



More entitlements aren't better. This has nothing to do with Muller finding no collusion anyway.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2019)

For the record, yes it is the government's job to make sure children are fed. If you do not feed your children, the government will come and take them away from you.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> For the record, yes it is the government's job to make sure children are fed. If you do not feed your children, the government will come and take them away from you.



It is the parents responsibility to feed their children. Not the government.

You may get your children taken away and given to different caretakers if you refuse to feed them, but no, it is the not the governments job to provide food.

Food is cheap af in this country anyway how the hell does anyone not feed their kids.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It is the parents responsibility to feed their children. Not the government.
> 
> You may get your children taken away and given to different caretakers if you refuse to feed them, but no, it is the not the governments job to provide food.
> 
> Food is cheap af in this country anyway how the hell does anyone not feed their kids.


Though you can't deny healthy food there is expensive as fuck :3


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> It is the parents responsibility to feed their children. Not the government.
> 
> You may get your children taken away and given to different caretakers if you refuse to feed them, but no, it is the not the governments job to provide food.
> 
> Food is cheap af in this country anyway how the hell does anyone not feed their kids.



Lets assume a monthly income of 1400$, or 8.75$/hr (which is considered good pay at lower income brackets).

People also have to pay rent, mortgages, car payments, heating, gas, electric, cell service (required by most employers), internet (most employers require online application)
, and the internet is largely necesary for education). Some form of transport and clothes are required.

Average rent in the US is a bit over 700$ for cheaper locales, but can be twice that in some cities. For someone working an entry level or low pay job, that can easily be half of your monthly income. Utilities will be another 200$. Gas can easily cost 350$ a month, especially if you own an older vehicle. But lets assume stupidly frugal gas use and halve that to 175$ a month. Car insurance is another 100$ a month.

With just those factors accounted for, and assuming they don't have car payments, someone working a full time job above minimum wages has 225$ to spend on groceries and clothing per month. This theoretical person also has no health insurance.

Someone making minimum wage working full time would have 25$ to buy groceries for an entire month.

Groceries for one person cost ~180$ per month.

Roughly 30% of workers make at or near minimum wage. Throw in a car payment, a kid, health insurance, or an emergency and we are officially below the threshold of being able to afford groceries. Roughly a third of our country is one blown heater, broken down car, busted pipe, or medical bill from being physically unable to afford nutritious food.


----------



## PimpNuttz (Mar 25, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> This has nothing to do with Muller finding no collusion anyway.


Page 3.

First Paragraph.

Last sentence.

Friendly reminder that William Barr was handpicked because he believes a sitting President can't be indicted.
How do we know Barr didn't just cherry pick a quote from a paragraph relating to something else entirely in the final report besides collusion?
Oh right, we don't.

Mueller didn't exonerate Chucklefuck in Chief; Barr and Rosenstein did. They're the only ones who've read the final report.
They supposedly _decided_ there wasn't enough sufficient evidence to proceed with any more indictments, being the heads of DOJ and all.

Until the full report is out, all of you screaming 'no collusion' can go choke on a fat one.
This doesn't change shit.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

If we include just taxes to fund military discressional spending, that goes to 199.8$ and 3.4$ to spend on groceries respectively. Taxes in total goes to 57$ and -119$ respectively. Yes, people making close to minimum wage litteraly cannot afford the basics of living without cutting corners somewhere. If you are making car payments lose another 200$ minimum for a garbage used vehicle.

Our totals are now -143$ and -319$ respectively. This is for a used car with good credit, said car being an old and basic vehicle that will likely require frequent maintenance or suffer major breakdown.

Now lets add garbage private health insurance without an obamacare subsidy! 260$ a month. Now our totals are -403$ and -579$ dollars respectively.

This entire time I've been assuming full time employment. A lot of low paying jobs require full time availability, but only offer around 30 hours a week so they can avoid having to pay for benefits. Said benefits covering half that health insurance number mentioned above.

I could continue to add student loan payments, but that is just getting cruel.

You might be able to make it barely into the positive if you live in a literal rat infested half molded trailer or in a neighborhood where the cops frequently show up packing shotguns and riot gear for drug busts. My family did that for a few years, and we still had to recieve charity for a portion of that.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 25, 2019)

Thanks for helping to remind me why I'm a communist.


----------



## Ramjet (Mar 25, 2019)

PimpNuttz said:


> Page 3.
> 
> First Paragraph.
> 
> ...




Your kidding right?

Your running on the assumption that William Barr withheld information from Mueller's report to let Trump off the hook?

I mean there's so many problems with that but I'll give you this...

abcnews.go.com: Old Friends: William Barr and Robert Mueller may work together again, in a very different time


The delusion is amazing lately *facepalm*...


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 25, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Lets assume a monthly income of 1400$, or 8.75$/hr (which is considered good pay at lower income brackets).
> 
> People also have to pay rent, mortgages, car payments, heating, gas, electric, cell service (required by most employers), internet (most employers require online application)
> , and the internet is largely necesary for education). Some form of transport and clothes are required.
> ...



Your 'math' is outrageously silly. Do you even pay your own bills?

If you are trying to say that two working parents cannot support a child if they work at minimum wage you are dead wrong. You just split rent with your spouse. If you live in the city you don't even buy a car.
Plus it is really easy to find a job that pays more than minimum wage or allows you lots of overtime work.
It is way easier to not be poor in this country than people like you claim. Did you notice the cheapest expenditure you make is food? $100 a month will easily feed one person for a month, and even if you triple it, it is still really cheap. Starvation is a good problem not to have in this country.

How we got here from Muller reporting no collusion is beyond me. I think it started with fallowfox using a ridiculous analogy about McDonalds taking over the government when I said it is okay for politicians to care about supporting business.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Thanks for helping to remind me why I'm a communist.



Once you actually get a life and start a well paid career you will look back and laugh at how silly your younger communist self was. This happened to hippie boomers too so don't feel ashamed.


----------



## Keefur (Mar 26, 2019)

Against my better judgement, I'm going to throw my 2 cents in here.  
First of all, I am not defending nor condemning Trump.  This is a situation that goes beyond that and this post has nothing to do with the policies coming out of the White House.  You can love him or hate him, but you have to overlook your feelings and look at what happened and the repercussions.  

What the Democrats did to Trump was wrong.  The bias  was blatant and unmistakable.  The means were questionable at best.  The Democrats horribly damaged their brand and the damage may be irreparable before the 2020 elections, if at all.  The Democrats should never have had this investigation because the premise of it was shaky at best and a lie at worst.  What happened was a no-holds-barred scorched earth ploy to take down a legitimately elected official.  It doesn't matter whether or not you feel it was justified.  That is irrelevant.  Many Democrats refuse to acknowledge the election and wish to pursue impeachment without the presence of a crime, but unless this whole rats nest is cleaned out, this will happen again, and again, and again.  The Democrats may succed or fail, but it will happen again since there is precedent for it now.  It may be the Republicans doing it the next time.  The results will still be the same.   The government will grind to a halt.  There has to be accountability and the Band-Aid has to be ripped off to do it.  I think there should be a second special council to investigate the whole Russian collusion probe to find out what happened.  The Democrats crawled up the Republicans rectum with a microscope and found nothing tied to the President.  I know that some of you will say, "Obstruction of Justice!", but you have to be blocking an investigation into a crime, and apparently there was no crime committed, so that doesn't fly.  The politics in this country swing like a pendalum between the parties as a natural matter of course, and the Democrats tried to short circuit that process and must pay the piper.  I know that none of you are for running the country by illegal and immoral means.  Trump haters and Trump supporters will never let this go without knowing the whole story, so I think the only way for the Department of Justice to help the country heal is to do a second investigation of the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton's treatment by the DoJ, as painful as that may be.  So everyone forego the Trump bashing/praising and focus on what happened to cause this whole Mueller investigation.


----------



## Keefur (Mar 26, 2019)

Say my name said:


> Furthermore, their behavior now is the reaction of a painful denial. Many of those I see are simply denying the credibility of the report as it comes out that Trump DID NOT collude with Russia and DID NOT go out of his constitutional rights as president of the US to obstruct justice. They’re claiming that the FBI did not do a good enough job at investigating to find enough evidence that Trump did any of those things. And to that, I say this.... The FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) with the most brilliant detectives and investigators in the world...  the bureau that found the Unabomber by using his grammar which nobody in the world could do for over 30 years.... the agency that will find you for any crime that you think you can get away with.... spent 2 entire years trying to find any evidence of Trump working with Russia to make the 2016 election work in his favor... and they found nothing... don’t you think that with as many resources the FBI has at its dispose and with that much skill and knowledge, that if there was any conspiracy with Trump and Russia, that they certainly would have found it within 2 years? That is the rhetorical question which leads to the only other possibility that the whole story was a great big hoax that fooled way too many people... all this did was wasted the FBI’s time and wasted 40 million taxpayer dollars on this great big witch hunt.
> 
> I think that if I can face jail time for prank calling the cops and have them come out and investigate nothing, then the “news organizations” that published these lies in the whole monologue of “Trump colluded with Russia!” needs to be held to the same standards as everyone else since they wasted everyone’s time and money with this whole circus.


I try to remain the Switzerland of politics here in the Fandom.  I just saw a situation where hatred blotted out reason and due process.  The person I was going to vote for never made it through the primaries is as far as I'm going to go with my statement about my personal politics.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 26, 2019)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> @Liseran Thistle We have school lunch programs, Food Banks, and the Food Stamp program as well - which is not really adequate to meet everyone's needs, many will argue - (and I agree with that); but, at least it's something...right? More political arm-twisting inside Washington (in order for them to do more), is where the pressure needs to be placed... but - regrettably, given the dysfunction of Washington these days - I wouldn't hold my breath.



I get where your coming from, but I'd prefer it if every kid in this country somehow had access to food no matter what. There are a lot of things in this country that greatly benefit poor kids, like libraries. There was some asshat politician who said he just wanted to abolish libraries all together because he couldn't find any benefit to them, or more importantly that they were a monetary waste. The library in my community is awesome, cause they give free lunch and dinner to kids throughout the day, it's a place where parents can drop their kids off at a safe space without having to pay the extra cost of a babysitter, there's a wealth of knowledge and free tutoring for younger kids. I can't imagine people trying to get rid of something like that just cause they don't feel like paying for it, or they feel they shouldn't have to.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Your 'math' is outrageously silly. Do you even pay your own bills?
> 
> If you are trying to say that two working parents cannot support a child if they work at minimum wage you are dead wrong. You just split rent with your spouse. If you live in the city you don't even buy a car.
> Plus it is really easy to find a job that pays more than minimum wage or allows you lots of overtime work.
> ...


Cities have an even higher cost of living than what I calculated. You can safely double that rent figure. 

Every kid costs roughly 800$ a month.

So lets redo our math now;

Two partners at 8.75$/hour, which is well over minimum wage gives us 2800$ a month, or 2464$ after federal taxes. 

Rent for a 2 bedroom apartment in my area is typically 700$ a month if you want a miniscule living space and/or rats. City apartments can be even worse for costs  Current running total 1764$

For an apartment and family that size you are looking at ~400$ in utilities. Current running total of 1364$

Health insurance is going to be roughly 
600$ for three people including the kid, and thats lowballing incredibly hard and assuming decent employer options. A family plan without an employer can run into the 1000$/month range on average, but we'll pretend they have an unrealisticly good employer option. Running total of 764$ remaining. 

Two monthly bus passes are 156$. Running total of 608$

A good childcare facility is going to run you 700$ a month. But we are going to pay our neighbor to watch our kid at 20$ a day. That gets us down to 440$ a month.
Running total of 168$

Groceries for a family of 3 are around 465$ if we spend our money thriftily. Running total of -297$. 

Again, you could save 200$ by living in a rathole. But you still have to cut out 97$ in cost somewhere just to break even. This is before we include the costs of clothes, especially for a kid, or student loans or other debt. We have also been incredibly generous with the costs of rent and health insurance, as well as utilities since ratholes have higher heating bills, especially in colder regions. 

Since we don't have a car, we can't really go out very far from the transit line for jobs. As a pedestrian myself, I can tell you that eliminates a good half of available jobs. The half that remains are nearer public transit, and tend to be lower income. 

This is the income bracket that a third of the country hovers around. 

A bit under half of US workers make less than 15$ an hour. Jobs paying 15$/hour typicall require some level of college education, though there are union manufacturing jobs which rarely expand employment opportunities locally. These jobs are highly competitive, and you will be competing with people who have Assosciates and Bachelors degrees even in unskilled positions. Assuming you have such a degree, we can include student loan debt in our above equation, at which point the gains of that wage are lost paying off that debt. 

So no, jobs paying above this wage bracket are not abundant or easy to aquire.


----------



## Minerva_Minx (Mar 26, 2019)

The Special Counsel investigation was never about collusion.  That was Trumps spin on it.

The Special investigation was a law enforcement function with intelligence backing on Russian interference in the 2016 election.  by mandate, as a law enforcement investigation, the special counsel is charged, by law, to document and prosecute any wrongdoing uncovered as a duty to report. 

The term collusion was brought into the public by Trump via tweet storm (proof he should not have Twitter access) and reporters actually confusing an anti-trust segment with Russian interference (if you ain't first, you're last mentality) and the politicians (because any coverage is good coverage apparently).

So, collusion wasn't a thing, just a possibility given the failure to divest issue (Trump making the first of a lot of bad calls), Manafort dealing with Russian heads of state (convicted) and tons of people around Trump making seriously bad calls, including hiring Flynn despite nearly literally everyone around him telling him that guy was bad news.  Add in tariffs, chronic lying, and his unchecked narcissism, and kind overtures and well wishes to world dictators and human rights abusers, and well


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 26, 2019)

Your view on the state of affairs in the economy is based untirely on your own perspective which ignores the experience half of Americans actually face. Most people don't have your luck, and get to live on wages that are decreasing in relation to inflating costs. A third of this country are living paycheck to paycheck, and a tenth could not realistically feed themselves on their wages without charity and social programs.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Cities have an even higher cost of living than what I calculated. You can safely double that rent figure.
> 
> Every kid costs roughly 800$ a month.
> 
> ...



This is a thread about Muller's report. If you want me to educate you on how to balance your budget make a new thread.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> Most people don't have your luck


*hard work and good money management


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 26, 2019)

@Anon Raccoon
I have a budget. Assuming I eat nothing but ramen and 2.50$ meals for the next six months, I might make it through as long as no surprise expenses like medical injury or broken glasses occur. I've volunteered for any shift I could, including 10 and 12 hour days. The only reason I can afford my current situation is because household expenses are split three ways. If I lived on my own, just rent and utilities would exceed my pay if I moved back into the rat and black mold infested trailer. I'm currently in the process of trying to switch jobs, but that is its own adventure.



Say my name said:


> Are we really going to ignore the fact that he’s talking about having 2 kids at $8.75 per month? I’ve got a better solution for you if your argument is that kids are too expensive.... CLOSE YOUR LEGS! If you can’t afford kids, then don’t have kids until you can afford them.... case closed.



Perhaps you can't read, but the subject came up because Annon made the offhand and ignorant comment that nobody should be unable to afford food in this country because its so cheap. The post you quoted was about a two parent household with one kid, which Annon suggested would make your economic system magically better than living alone. I also provided the cost of living alone at that income bracket, which was in excess of the income earned. Roughly a third of the nation is living just above or below red without welfare programs and charity.

But I guess we are off topic. Lets get back to how Trump has effectively embezzled federal funds to his company and gotten around the emoluments clause by placing the business under his son's name, and directed government functions to totally not his private business in a flagrant abuse of power utterly demonstrable of outright corruption. Back on topic.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> I have a budget. Assuming I eat nothing but ramen and 2.50$ meals for the next six months, I might make it through as long as no surprise expenses like medical injury or broken glasses occur. I've volunteered for any shift I could, including 10 and 12 hour days. The only reason I can afford my current situation is because household expenses are split three ways. If I lived on my own, just rent and utilities would exceed my pay if I moved back into the rat and black mold infested trailer. I'm currently in the process of trying to switch jobs, but that is its own adventure.



Do you want me to provide you a list of good companies to work for that pay more than minimum wage that do not require experience? 
(I am actually being sincere here)

There are millions of unfilled jobs in this country to choose from.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 26, 2019)

I'm sorry to everyone else for losing my cool, but some of us know poverty as a personal experience, and don't appreciate flat out ignorant comments from rich twats.

And trust me, I already have multiple resources for finding jobs. My area has higher unemployment than the rest of the country, and I've lost jobs as low as bagger to people with assosciate degrees. I only have my current job because my predecessor got fire for stealing from the breakroom fridge.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Misha Bordiga Zahradník said:


> flat out ignorant comments from rich twats.



Is that how you see us? I just started my career and I am only middle class.

I would highly recommend moving to a better area for work. Commercial trucking is starving for employees have you tried that? I heard Walmart is willing to pay $87,000 a year for truck drivers!


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Is that how you see us? I just started my career and I am only middle class.


Donate all your earnings so it can be redistributed to the poor

You should learn a thing or two from Hemms Fox :3


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Donate all your earnings so it can be redistributed to the poor
> 
> You should learn a thing or two from Hemms Fox :3



But I work 12 hours a day 300 days a year in the middle of nowhere for that money

But if the government is just gonna provide everything for me I might as well not work, ya know?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> But if the government is just gonna provide everything for me I might as well not work, ya know?


I change my mind, I want free money also.
Seize the means of production


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 26, 2019)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I change my mind, I want free money also.
> Seize the means of production


And if you force people to work it's slavery.

Back on-topic: This is a conspiracy theory that have been proven to be wrong. Now deal with it like the supposed adult you're supposed to be.


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Mar 26, 2019)

Even if the report had brought a russia connection to light, it wouldn't have chaned something about the situation. Trump supporters don't vote for their president because he's a candid and integer guy. They elected him because he trolls and disrupts a political system, they hate. And considdering that a huge part the US political landscape is still reactionary conservative, the chance is verry high that trump will be reelected for a second term. In the end, Trump is not the problem at all. He's just the symptom of a rancorous and cynical attitude in a society that whiches to live in the past, while the world rushes towards the future. I'm really curious how much of the values and influence of USA will be left in 2024 when trump is done with picking the bones. However, his successor isn't to be envied.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (Mar 26, 2019)

dragon-in-sight said:


> while the world rushes towards the future


I can list some very entertaining examples of your so called "progression" :V


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Mar 26, 2019)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I can list some very entertaining examples of your so called "progression" :V



Well. Then do so please.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 26, 2019)

dragon-in-sight said:


> Even if the report had brought a russia connection to light, it wouldn't have chaned something about the situation. Trump supporters don't vote for their president because he's a candid and integer guy. They elected him because he trolls and disrupts a political system, they hate. And considdering that a huge part the US political landscape is still reactionary conservative, the chance is verry high that trump will be reelected for a second term. In the end, Trump is not the problem at all. He's just the symptom of a rancorous and cynical attitude in a society that whiches to live in the past, while the world rushes towards the future. I'm really curious how much of the values and influence of USA will be left in 2024 when trump is done with picking the bones. However, his successor isn't to be envied.


One side is fixated on what he says as opposed to what he does. The other side care about what he does and don't really care much about what he say. One side takes him literally but not seriously, while the other take him seriously but not literally. I will leave you to figure out which side is which.


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Mar 26, 2019)

Say my name said:


> With what you said being true to start his administration off, let’s look at a few things. Have the stock markets ever been so high during any other administration?



Economic development dosn't react to political decisions in real time. It takes 3-4 years until the results of certain decisions show at the stock markets. Considdering this, US economy is still benefits from decisions of the obama administration. The results of Trumps policy will be seen in the next few years to come.



Say my name said:


> Has any other president ever worked so hard to dissolve the tensions between North Korea and the US?



Do you mean his phenomenal results at the last Vietnam summit? Or his fire and fury talks?



Say my name said:


> What about jobs? Well, the steel mill a few miles away shut down in 2008 and just opened back up in 2017 and it’s not the only place where people can see jobs opening back up. In fact, foeign manufacturing jobs are starting to show up here in the US with brands like Mercedes Benz showing up alongside Volvo in the same town as Boeing. You’d have to live under a rock to deny the fact that jobs are showing up in the US. And it’s all thanks to Trump’s economic policies.



Ah, you mean like this for exemple?

www.fastcompany.com: The U.S. job losses from Trump’s tariffs are starting to pile up


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Mar 26, 2019)

Say my name said:


> If what any of you just said held any water











Say my name said:


> It’s a slow process, but progress is progress and we aren’t waking up anymore to the alert of North Korea threatening to launch ICBMs into our backyards anymore



This threat is far from being over at the moment. Kim never gave up on his nuclear programm. He's just buying time.

www.wsj.com: North Korea Still Using Uranium-Enrichment Facility, U.N. Agency Says


----------



## Keefur (Mar 26, 2019)

Minerva_Minx said:


> The Special Counsel investigation was never about collusion.  That was Trumps spin on it.
> 
> The Special investigation was a law enforcement function with intelligence backing on Russian interference in the 2016 election.  by mandate, as a law enforcement investigation, the special counsel is charged, by law, to document and prosecute any wrongdoing uncovered as a duty to report.
> 
> ...



Well, you are right up to a point.  It never really was about collusion because collusion isn't a crime.  No one really knows what it was about because Mueller's mandate was never released so no one was really sure what his probe was supposed to cover.

We will all have to wait until we see what all the Muller probe investigated.  I can imagine they delved into some of Trump's finances, at least as they related to possible foreign influence.  If so, it appears they didn't find anything.  From what was leaked, there may have been some ethically wrong behavior, but nothing that was criminal.

There has been so much media information about this whole affair that is just plain lies and misdirection that I went back and checked to see who started using the term "Russian collusion" and found it was the press who started using it after an interview with Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook (July 22, 2016).  Within three hours of it first being used by the Washington Examiner, all the media and even Bernie Sander's campaign were using it.  Trump didn't use the term "collusion".  Trump's initial tweets were paraphrased by the press as such.

Since the Obama administration knew about Russian interference before the election and didn't do anything about it, I would like that looked into as well.  Was Obama just trying to not rock the boat because he thought Hillary would win... or was he trying to bait the Trump campaign into commiting a crime?  Why was Hillary and the Clinton campaign given a pass to all of their questionable (at minimum) behavior?  Was this whole thing an actual coup attempt?

I feel bad for Flynn because he got caught telling a lie trying to do his job and pled guilty to save his family finances.  He was talking to foreign governments before his officially being authorized to do so.  In a twist of irony, just released emails from Hillary Clinton showed that she was doing the exact same thing by opening "back channels" to foreign governments before being sworn in as Secretary of State.  She literallly wanted secret communications outside normal government channels.  Her emails showed that she lied under oath to Congress.  This was just recently found out, so I will be interested to see if it is handled the same way as Flynn.

I do find it disturbing that the origins of the probe are so shady.  Was the FISA court lied to?  Was Carter Page being used as a means to spy on the Trump campaign?  Was anything in the Steele dossier verified before use?  All of the same "bad actors" from the FBI and the DoJ keep popping up as being in charge of things they obviously had conflicts of interest in.  I also was troubled by the way that Bernie Sanders was treated during the primaries by the DNC.  All of the events of the 2016 election make this such a huge, gross ball of wax that I don't know if it will ever get sorted out properly.

As I said above, I am keeping policies and personalities out of this because from a legal standpoint, they aren't relevant to the subject of the Mueller investigation.    I am only trying to ask questions or talk about subjects that relate to possible crimes.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 26, 2019)

Keefur said:


> Well, you are right up to a point.  It never really was about collusion because collusion isn't a crime.  No one really knows what it was about because Mueller's mandate was never released so no one was really sure what his probe was supposed to cover.
> 
> We will all have to wait until we see what all the Muller probe investigated.  I can imagine they delved into some of Trump's finances, at least as they related to possible foreign influence.  If so, it appears they didn't find anything.  From what was leaked, there may have been some ethically wrong behavior, but nothing that was criminal.
> 
> ...



I think that Obama failed to appreciate the threat that Russia posed and failed to appreciate just how vulnerable the American political system is to foreign efforts to subvert it.

I know that's probably the most boring explanation- and the one that requires the most work to fix incidentally so it's like...triple boring...but usually the boring answers happen to be the right ones.

If it _is _your perspective that colluding with a foreign power isn't a crime, maybe that's a strong argument to explain that the American political system is vulnerable to foreign subversion for example. x3
Imagine how you would feel if a politician you didn't like clinched the presidency under much suspicion that they had colluded with Beijing, and their response was to say that it wouldn't have been a crime if they did.

You'd probably feel a bit like they'd just pissed in your glass and told you it was lemonade.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

dragon-in-sight said:


> Economic development dosn't react to political decisions in real time. It takes 3-4 years until the results of certain decisions show at the stock markets. Considdering this, US economy is still benefits from decisions of the obama administration. The results of Trumps policy will be seen in the next few years to come.



I can tell you from experience this is not true. Investors react immediately to relevant political events. You can make the case that things like changes in the tax laws take years to take effect but no, the boom in the stock market the past 2 years is not because of Obama, sorry. Especially considering he couldn't do anything to sabotage the economy his second term because Republicans had control of Congress.


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I can tell you from experience this is not true. Investors react immediately to relevant political events



Yes but this are short term impacts. And these don't cause stable trends. I was talking about long term economic development. Take the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis for exemple. The deamage was done immediately but the longterm consequences kicked in years later. Trump already caused many economic shake-ups like the tradewar with china and the long shutdown at the start of the year. All this summs up, and will have negative longterm consequences. It's not that hard to understand unless people learn to think past the tip of their noses.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

dragon-in-sight said:


> Yes but this are short term impacts. And these don't cause stable trends. I was talking about long term economic development. Take the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis for exemple. The deamage was done immediately but the longterm consequences kicked in years later. Trump already caused many economic shake-ups like the tradewar with china and the long shutdown at the start of the year. All this summs up, and will have negative longterm consequences. It's not that hard to understand unless people learn to think past the tip of their noses.



I am no fan of obstacles to free trade like tariffs, but it is still dishonest to try and give credit to Obama for an economic recovery that had nothing to do with him, and would have likely been faster if it hadn't been for his stimulus and bailout policy. 

The FDR style 'spend money you dont have to fix the economy' actually makes things worse


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> and would have likely been faster if it hadn't been for his stimulus and bailout policy.



History doesn't agree with this thesis


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

dragon-in-sight said:


> History doesn't agree with this thesis



Yes it does.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I think that Obama failed to appreciate the threat that Russia posed and failed to appreciate just how vulnerable the American political system is to foreign efforts to subvert it.



Obama actively mocked Mitt Romney for saying Russia was a threat... 4 years before trump.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

I was refraining from commenting before the full report was released, but I think some clarity is in order here.

The collusion issue notwithstanding, the investigation has exposed a stunning amount of corruption surrounding Trump's associates, which should be concerning enough. The report also details Russian interference in the 2016 election as well too. Besides that, we also have:

Guilty pleas, clear admissions of guilt, for the following people:

Michael Flynn, former national security adviser no less, who is guilty of lying to investigators, but is cooperating with prosecutors. His sentencing was delayed because he continued to be a credible and useful witness. His sentence will likely be lenient as a result. There could still be feasible fallout from this. 

Richard Pinedo, a computer programmer, was found guilty of identity fraud for selling dummy bank accounts to Russian agents, technically treason. He was sentenced to six months in prison, six months of home detention and two years of supervised release.

George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide, was found guilty of lying to investigators. Papadopoulos was cooperating with investigators. He initially faced up to six months in prison, but was ultimately sentenced to two weeks in prison and one year supervised release.

Richard Gates III, a former Trump campaign and White House aide, was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States and making false statements. Gates is cooperating with prosecutors. His sentencing is currently being delayed so that he could continue to cooperate with the investigation.

Alex van der Swaan, a Dutch lawyer, was found guilty of lying to investigators about his work with Gates. He was subsequently was deported after serving a 30-day sentence on his conviction.

W. Sameul Patten, was found guilty of one count of failing to register with the Justice Department when he represented a Ukrainian political party known as the Opposition Bloc from 2014 through this year. In his guilty plea, Patten admitted to illegally arranging for an American straw donor to funnel money from a Ukrainian businessman to fund Trump's inauguration. Patten had worked with Manafort (convicted) and suspected Russian intelligence operative Konstatin Kilimnik (indicted by Mueller's team); he has worked for Cambridge Analytica's parent company, SCL. In his plea agreement, Patten agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Maria Butina, a lifetime NRA member and the first Russian to be incarcerated in this investigation, charged on July 15, 2018 with "conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation, and was ordered held without bond." At her detention hearing, the FBI alleged that Butina has extensive contacts with the Russian spy agency FSB, and she has exchanged sex for business purposes, presumably espionage, including an ongoing relationship with a Republican operative. She was charged by the FBI but not by the Special Counsel's office, a sign that Trump's signaling of intent to obstruct justice by firing the Special Counsel might fail. In December 2018, Butina pleaded guilty to conspiracy to act as an illegal foreign agent in the United States, admitting that she acted under the direction of Russian official Aleksandr Torshin,who is basically the only other Russian lifetime NRA member.

Paul Manafort, who was the former Trump campaign chairman, was charged with obstruction of justice, money laundering, tax fraud, failure to register as a foreign agent, failure to report foreign bank accounts, and making false statements. Manafort got convicted in his first trial on 8 counts of tax and bank fraud charges in August 2018. As part of a plea agreement to avoid a second trial, Manafort pleaded guilty to two criminal charges, that he cheated the IRS and that he violated foreign lobbying laws. As part of the agreement, Manafort also agreed to fully cooperate with the Mueller investigation, but then allegedly lied to the Special Counsel thereby invalidating his plea agreement. He also allegedly lied about sharing polling data with Russian business partner Konstantin Kilimnik. In early March 2019, Manafort was sentenced to 47 months in prison for tax and bank frauds related to his work in Ukraine. Right now, his total prison sentence was seven and a half years.

And let's not forget Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime lawyer and personal fixer, who plead guilty to 8 counts of bank fraud, tax fraud, and illegal campaign contributions in August 2018. In his guilty plea, Cohen implicated Trump directly in some of his acts. Although the charges that Cohen plead guilty to were not related to the Russia investigation since the case was not handled in court by Mueller's team, the FBI had previously raided Cohen's house, hotel and office, seizing a trove of documents. Mueller's team has been investigating whether this any evidence in the documents connect Trump to Russian illegal activity. Due to Cohen's guilty pleas, Trump is now effectively an unindicted co-conspirator. Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, said that Cohen has information on whether Trump participated in a criminal conspiracy to hack into Democratic emails in 2016, and that Cohen would be "more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows." In November 2018, Cohen also plead guilty to lying to Congress about a Moscow real estate project that Trump was pursuing at the same time as the 2016 election campaign. In December 2018, Cohen was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Besides that all, there are 28 indictments, included Roger Stone's, currently in the courts. 

That is a significant amount of criminal activity surrounding Trump and his associates, in my opinion. I would like to see the full report before reaching further conclusions, but I would hardly say the report turned up nothing at all.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> I was refraining from commenting before the full report was released, but I think some clarity is in order here.
> 
> The collusion issue notwithstanding, the investigation has exposed a stunning amount of corruption surrounding Trump's associates, which should be concerning enough. The report also details Russian interference in the 2016 election as well too. Besides that, we also have:
> 
> ...



What is interesting is how much 'criminality' was making false statements. There is such thing as a perjury trap which many of these people fell into. Which is why it was smart of Trump to never talk to investigators. Many wouldn't be 'criminals' if the investigation (which turned out to be a complete farce) had not existed. This is why if the police ever ask to talk to you, you tell them NO! Innocent or guilty. Wether you are the subject of an investigation or just a witness. Because if they don't like you and find out your statements are false, (even if you didn't know they were false or you didn't remember correctly) they can charge you with perjury or making false statements to investigators.

For example if the police stop you and ask you "do you know why I pulled you over?" if you answer "because I was speeding" that can be used as evidence against you.

As a side note, they don't even have to notify you that your statements can be used against you, and that lying is a crime, unless you are under arrest. Michael Flynn was a good example of someone who didn't know this and was never warned before he talked to investigators.

www.apnews.com: Mueller says FBI not to blame for Flynn's false statements

"The special counsel’s office is pushing back at the suggestion that the FBI acted improperly in its interview of former national security adviser Michael Flynn, saying he “chose to make false statements” and did not need a warning that it was against the law to do so.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> What is interesting is how much 'criminality' was making false statements. There is such thing as a perjury trap which many of these people fell into. Which is why it was smart of Trump to never talk to investigators. Many wouldn't be 'criminals' if the investigation (which turned out to be a complete farce) had not existed. This is why if the police ever ask to talk to you, you tell them NO! Innocent or guilty. Wether you are the subject of an investigation or just a witness. Because if they don't like you and find out your statements are false, (even if you didn't know they were false or you didn't remember correctly) they can charge you with perjury or making false statements to investigators.
> 
> For example if the police stop you and ask you "do you know why I pulled you over?" if you answer "because I was speeding" that can be used as evidence against you.


I'll take the completely outrageous position of saying don't lie to law enforcement, especially federal agents. 

Furthermore, all of the guilty parties had access to legal counsel, who would have advised them appropriately.

Plus, I would ask why innocent parties feel the need to lie.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> Furthermore, all of the guilty parties had access to legal counsel, who would have advised them appropriately.



Not Michael Flynn.

But yes you are correct don't lie to law enforcement. Even if the investigation was launched under false pretenses.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Not Michael Flynn.


He had a legal team and even if he couldn't afford one, representation would have been provided as is his right under the law.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Not Michael Flynn.
> 
> But yes you are correct don't lie to law enforcement. Even if the investigation was launched under false pretenses.



Your god didn't really help himself when he stood in front of a public crowd and thanked a foreign nation for interfering in the election on his behalf. 

It's a _no brainer _that an investigation was started; that's your country's immune system functioning as it should. It would be very _worrying_ if they just said 'no that's fine,'.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> He had a legal team and even if he couldn't afford one, representation would have been provided as is his right under the law.



He had a legal team after the fact. Read the news story.

"Prosecutors said Friday that Flynn voluntarily agreed to meet with the FBI *without a lawyer present* and had enough experience in government to understand the consequences of lying and “the importance of accurate information to decision making in areas of national security.”"


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

I'm not saying he didn't make mistakes mind you. But the lying was the cause of an investigation launched under false pretenses.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Your god



You overestimate my opinion of president Trump. There is only one God and his hair does not look like that lol



Fallowfox said:


> thanked a foreign nation for interfering in the election on his behalf.



=/= collusion


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> You overestimate my opinion of president Trump. There is only one God and his hair does not look like that lol
> 
> 
> 
> =/= collusion



Do you understand why a political candidate thanking Russia for helping them is the sort of thing that justifies the intelligence services taking a sniff around?


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Not Michael Flynn.
> 
> But yes you are correct don't lie to law enforcement. Even if the investigation was launched under false pretenses.


You were slick slipping in that edit.

I would say there were serious oversights, at minimum, in the Trump campaign and White House that prompted this investigation. But more to the core of the matter, had Micheal Flynn not made false statements regarding his  request to the Sergey Kislyak, Russian ambassador, that Russia refrain from escalating the situation in response to U.S. sanctions against Russia in exchange for future considerations, his request that foreign officials vote against or delay a UN Security Council Resolution, and his contacts with a foreign government, he would have been a free man. 

I probably should have stuck that in my first post here so you couldn't twist my words.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> I would say there were serious oversights, at minimum, in the Trump campaign and White House that prompted this investigation.





Fallowfox said:


> Do you understand why a political candidate thanking Russia for helping them is the sort of thing that justifies the intelligence services taking a sniff around?



The question now is if the investigation was launched under false pretenses. There could be serious consequences if there were not sufficient grounds to launch the investigation in the first place. (They can't just investigate for no reason, there actually has to be grounds for the investigation to be launched. Trump saying 'thanks' to putin off the cuff, or tweeting things about leaked emails is not enough)

The FBI can't just one day decide to investigate you for no reason without any probable cause that a crime was committed. The case could be made the FBI didn't have that, or they based the investigation on false/unverified media reports, or the fake steele dossier paid for by democrats.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Do you understand why a political candidate thanking Russia for helping them is the sort of thing that justifies the intelligence services taking a sniff around?


Have you ever heard of sarcasm? A joke?

I thought it was obvious that Trump was using sarcasm to call out the mainstream media’s hypocrisy for giving Hillary Clinton’s blatant destruction of evidence a pass, but apparently humor is something some people are incapable of understanding.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> The question now is if the investigation was launched under false pretenses. There could be serious consequences if there were not sufficient grounds to launch the investigation in the first place. (They can't just investigate for no reason, there actually has to be grounds for the investigation to be launched. Trump saying 'thanks' to putin off the cuff, or tweeting things about leaked emails is not enough)
> 
> The FBI can't just one day decide to investigate you for no reason without any probable cause that a crime was committed. The case could be made the FBI didn't have that, or they based the investigation on false/unverified media reports, or the fake steele dossier paid for by democrats.



I mean, basically you had a candidate directly addressing a foreign power that they knew was accused of hacking their opponent...and _asking them to do it again. _





So...I don't know, that's a pretty clear justification to investigate?



Telnac said:


> Have you ever heard of sarcasm? A joke?
> 
> I thought it was obvious that Trump was using sarcasm to call out the mainstream media’s hypocrisy for giving Hillary Clinton’s blatant destruction of evidence a pass, but apparently humor is something some people are incapable of understanding.



If you're running for president, it's best not to joke about asking another country to hack your opponent's party- *especially if it turns out that they did. *

Under a normal political climate, that situation would never come up, because the people running would be smart enough to know why it's a bad idea. 
But the last 4 years have kind of been like living inside _idiocracy. _
Idiocracy - Wikipedia


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I mean, basically you had a candidate directly addressing a foreign power that they knew was accused of hacking their opponent...and _asking them to do it again. _
> 
> 
> So...I don't know, that's a pretty clear justification to investigate?



Even If he says it publicly, It is still hearsay and does not actually link him to Russia. He is commenting on current events, not trying to collude. 

I don't think they will get very far if they do push the 'investigation being under false pretenses' angle but it is not out of the question that there may not have been sufficient grounds to launch an investigation. Especially given that the motive to investigate outweighed the actual facts.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> The question now is if the investigation was launched under false pretenses. There could be serious consequences if there were not sufficient grounds to launch the investigation in the first place. (They can't just investigate for no reason, there actually has to be grounds for the investigation to be launched. Trump saying 'thanks' to putin off the cuff, or tweeting things about leaked emails is not enough)
> 
> The FBI can't just one day decide to investigate you for no reason without any probable cause that a crime was committed. The case could be made the FBI didn't have that, or they based the investigation on false/unverified media reports, or the fake steele dossier paid for by democrats.


I would say the groundwork was laid when Trump fired FBI director James Comey on May 9, 2017. One week after Trump fired Comey for refusing to terminate the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia, Robert Mueller got appointed as Special Counsel in charge of that investigation by Rod Rosenstein. Both men are Republicans in good standing and records of integrity, not mention that Mueller wa interviewed by Trump to be FBI Director and Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. I would not call them political shills. 

But let's not forget when he admitted to Lester Holt he fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation.


----------



## Telnac (Mar 26, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> Idiocracy - Wikipedia


Damned good movie.

I'm less interested in the origins of the Muller investigation and more interested in learning why ppl didn't go to jail over knowingly using false intelligence to get FISA court warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. That's Watergate-level abuse of power.

The real scandal of the Muller investigation is that the mainstream media knew it was BS for years and lied to the American people about it. Trump was right to call them fake news.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

@Anon Raccoon , I noticed you slipped in an edit to try shore up your argument, so I'll answer the edit.

Micheal Flynn was appointed Defense Intelligence Agency director by Barack Obama. Since he was in that position, he would know that lying to federal agent is a chargeable offense since they brief you on the consequences of treason when you enter positions in the United States intelligence community.

I'll repost this:

The collusion issue notwithstanding, the investigation has exposed a stunning amount of corruption surrounding Trump's associates, which should be concerning enough. The report also details Russian interference in the 2016 election as well too. Besides that, we also have:

Guilty pleas, clear admissions of guilt, for the following people:

Michael Flynn, former national security adviser no less, who is guilty of lying to investigators, but is cooperating with prosecutors. His sentencing was delayed because he continued to be a credible and useful witness. His sentence will likely be lenient as a result. There could still be feasible fallout from this.

Richard Pinedo, a computer programmer, was found guilty of identity fraud for selling dummy bank accounts to Russian agents, technically treason. He was sentenced to six months in prison, six months of home detention and two years of supervised release.

George Papadopoulos, a former Trump campaign aide, was found guilty of lying to investigators. Papadopoulos was cooperating with investigators. He initially faced up to six months in prison, but was ultimately sentenced to two weeks in prison and one year supervised release.

Richard Gates III, a former Trump campaign and White House aide, was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States and making false statements. Gates is cooperating with prosecutors. His sentencing is currently being delayed so that he could continue to cooperate with the investigation.

Alex van der Swaan, a Dutch lawyer, was found guilty of lying to investigators about his work with Gates. He was subsequently was deported after serving a 30-day sentence on his conviction.

W. Sameul Patten, was found guilty of one count of failing to register with the Justice Department when he represented a Ukrainian political party known as the Opposition Bloc from 2014 through this year. In his guilty plea, Patten admitted to illegally arranging for an American straw donor to funnel money from a Ukrainian businessman to fund Trump's inauguration. Patten had worked with Manafort (convicted) and suspected Russian intelligence operative Konstatin Kilimnik (indicted by Mueller's team); he has worked for Cambridge Analytica's parent company, SCL. In his plea agreement, Patten agreed to cooperate with prosecutors.

Maria Butina, a lifetime NRA member and the first Russian to be incarcerated in this investigation, charged on July 15, 2018 with "conspiracy to act as an agent of the Russian Federation, and was ordered held without bond." At her detention hearing, the FBI alleged that Butina has extensive contacts with the Russian spy agency FSB, and she has exchanged sex for business purposes, presumably espionage, including an ongoing relationship with a Republican operative. She was charged by the FBI but not by the Special Counsel's office, a sign that Trump's signaling of intent to obstruct justice by firing the Special Counsel might fail. In December 2018, Butina pleaded guilty to conspiracy to act as an illegal foreign agent in the United States, admitting that she acted under the direction of Russian official Aleksandr Torshin,who is basically the only other Russian lifetime NRA member.

Paul Manafort, who was the former Trump campaign chairman, was charged with obstruction of justice, money laundering, tax fraud, failure to register as a foreign agent, failure to report foreign bank accounts, and making false statements. Manafort got convicted in his first trial on 8 counts of tax and bank fraud charges in August 2018. As part of a plea agreement to avoid a second trial, Manafort pleaded guilty to two criminal charges, that he cheated the IRS and that he violated foreign lobbying laws. As part of the agreement, Manafort also agreed to fully cooperate with the Mueller investigation, but then allegedly lied to the Special Counsel thereby invalidating his plea agreement. He also allegedly lied about sharing polling data with Russian business partner Konstantin Kilimnik. In early March 2019, Manafort was sentenced to 47 months in prison for tax and bank frauds related to his work in Ukraine. Right now, his total prison sentence was seven and a half years.

And let's not forget Michael Cohen, Trump's longtime lawyer and personal fixer, who plead guilty to 8 counts of bank fraud, tax fraud, and illegal campaign contributions in August 2018. In his guilty plea, Cohen implicated Trump directly in some of his acts. Although the charges that Cohen plead guilty to were not related to the Russia investigation since the case was not handled in court by Mueller's team, the FBI had previously raided Cohen's house, hotel and office, seizing a trove of documents. Mueller's team has been investigating whether this any evidence in the documents connect Trump to Russian illegal activity. Due to Cohen's guilty pleas, Trump is now effectively an unindicted co-conspirator. Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, said that Cohen has information on whether Trump participated in a criminal conspiracy to hack into Democratic emails in 2016, and that Cohen would be "more than happy to tell the special counsel all that he knows." In November 2018, Cohen also plead guilty to lying to Congress about a Moscow real estate project that Trump was pursuing at the same time as the 2016 election campaign. In December 2018, Cohen was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Besides that all, there are 28 indictments, included Roger Stone's, currently in the courts.

That is a significant amount of criminal activity surrounding Trump and his associates, in my opinion. I would like to see the full report before reaching further conclusions, but I would hardly say the report turned up nothing at all.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> But let's not forget when he admitted to Lester Holt he fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation.



No he did not, that is not true.



Unicon said:


> I would say the groundwork was laid when Trump fired FBI director James Comey on May 9, 2017. One week after Trump fired Comey for refusing to terminate the ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia, Robert Mueller got appointed as Special Counsel in charge of that investigation by Rod Rosenstein. Both men are Republicans in good standing and records of integrity, not mention that Mueller wa interviewed by Trump to be FBI Director and Rosenstein is a Trump appointee. I would not call them political shills.



That was just speculation. Guesswork about what Trumps motives were do not constitute groundwork for an investigation.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> @Anon Raccoon , I noticed you slipped in an edit to try shore up your argument, so I'll answer the edit.
> 
> Micheal Flynn was appointed Defense Intelligence Agency director by Barack Obama. Since he was in that position, he would know that lying to federal agent is a chargeable offense since they brief you on the consequences of treason when you enter positions in the United States intelligence community.
> 
> ...



I already saw this post there is no reason to put it again. As I said before the 'false testimony' ones only exist because the investigation (possibly launched under false pretenses) existed. 

You can find crimes from relevant individuals but as the Muller report showed none of these things actually point to Trump himself. So I have no idea what you are getting at with this.
If some of your friends decide to go steal stuff and you are not involved, you are still innocent.
Do you think Muller and the FBI checked to see if any of these crimes linked to Trump? Of course they did. They found nothing.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> No he did not, that is not true.


www.cnbc.com: Trump contradicts himself by claiming he didn't fire Comey over the Russia probe

Reality is not in your favor.


Anon Raccoon said:


> That was just speculation. Guesswork about what Trumps motives were do not constitute groundwork for an investigation.


It was enough for two people he approached for positions in his administration and one deputy attorney he appointed to launch an investigation, so I'd disagree hard there.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I already saw this post there is no reason to put it again. As I said before the 'false testimony' ones only exist because the investigation (possibly launched under false pretenses) existed.
> 
> You can find crimes from relevant individuals but as the Muller report showed none of these things actually point to Trump himself. So I have no idea what you are getting at with this.
> If some of your friends decide to go steal stuff and you are not involved, you are still innocent.
> Do you think Muller and the FBI checked to see if any of these crimes linked to Trump? Of course they did. They found nothing.


I'm more concerned that a national security adviser was lying about inappropriate contacts rather than any hypothetical collusion between Trump and Russia. Michael Flynn broke the law by lying about those contacts, irrespective of the larger Trump-Russia investigation. He deserves jail for that alone.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> Reality is not in your favor.





Unicon said:


> But let's not forget when he admitted to Lester Holt he fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation.



This is what you said that Trump said. This is not correct. Find me the quote where trump says "I fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation."

It does not exist.

This is the quote:

“And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said: ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won,’

That is absolutely not him saying what you are claiming he said. I've seen this interview. It's strangely worded and ambiguous, as per usual Trump, but no. Hes not stating the Russia as the reason for the firing. Sorry. You are wrong. Your interpretation is irrelevant to the facts.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> I'm more concerned that a national security adviser was lying about inappropriate contacts rather than any hypothetical collusion between Trump and Russia. Michael Flynn broke the law by lying about those contacts, irrespective of the larger Trump-Russia investigation. He deserves jail for that alone.



Yes I am not disputing that.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> This is what you said that Trump said. This is not correct. Find me the quote where trump says "I fired James Comey because of the Russia investigation."
> 
> It does not exist.
> 
> ...


It speaks to his, and your, mindset that he said was firing Comey "regardless" of Rosenstein's recommendation and because of Russia investigation, which he states to be a hoax. The man was under investigation. It was extremely improper to fire Comey during the investigation because is how you wind up with a Saturday Night Massacre situation. The investigated should not be able to fire the investigators. This is a simple concept.


Anon Raccoon said:


> Yes I am not disputing that.


Just last page, you made excuses for him such as the charges against him were not exactly collusion related and that he did not know lying to federal agents was crime, so color me skeptical. 

I'm glad were making some progress, though. Now consider than 33 people have indicted in this investigation, including 13 Russian civilian nationals and 12 Russian military intelligence officers who have been charged with election interference. At let's not get started on the Americans who plead guilty to crimes as well too. If there was no collusion found, then I don't care about collision. I do care about treason, espionage, campaign violations, and governmental corruption, like any reasonable American, especially a conservative, should.

That is my take.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

Unicon said:


> Just last page, you made excuses for him such as the charges against him were not exactly collusion related and that he did not know lying to federal agents was crime, so color me skeptical.



I was just using flynns 'lying' charges as a good example of a perjury trap that would not have occurred without the investigation existing.



Unicon said:


> Just last page, you made excuses for him such as the charges against him were not exactly collusion related and that he did not know lying to federal agents was crime, so color me skeptical.
> 
> I'm glad were making some progress, though. Now consider than 33 people have indicted in this investigation, including 13 Russian civilian nationals and 12 Russian military intelligence officers who have been charged with election interference. At let's not get started on the Americans who plead guilty to crimes as well too. If there was no collusion found, then I don't care about collision. I do care about treason, espionage, campaign violations, and governmental corruption, like any reasonable American, especially a conservative, should.
> 
> That is my take.



Fuck the Russians messing with us. They are the real criminals here, there* is* solid cause to investigate Russian meddling in the election (an actual hacking crime was committed that they had to look into), but that is different than investigating the campaign itself, because there was only theory and speculation about Trumps 'ties' to it, which of course have been disproved (hence this thread).

People often forget the order of justice because of hatred for Trump:

Step 1: Identify a crime
Step 2: Look for clues and then Identify the people responsible for the crime
Step 3: Then prosecute the perpetrator. 

Many members of the democratic party are trying to skip step one and just going straight to step 2! Investigating an individual to see if they did any crimes. 
The police can't just go up to you in your daily life and decide to investigate you in case you might have done crimes.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Mar 26, 2019)

It's nice to see that this is finally over with but I wonder if it's going to make the Democrats want to conspire more or actually revamp their platform?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 26, 2019)

WolfyAmbassador said:


> It's nice to see that this is finally over with but I wonder if it's going to make the Democrats want to conspire more or actually revamp their platform?



From the looks of the media the past 2 days it seems like they are going to stick to whole the 'Trump is a criminal' thing.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 26, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I was just using flynns 'lying' charges as a good example of a perjury trap that would not have occurred without the investigation existing.


For a prejury trap to work, by definition the accused must lie to be ensnared. Don't lie to federal agents or commit crimes and you are as good as gold.


Anon Raccoon said:


> Fuck the Russians messing with us. They are the real criminals here, there* is* solid cause to investigate Russian meddling in the election (an actual hacking crime was committed that they had to look into), but that is different than investigating the campaign itself, because there was only theory and speculation about Trumps 'ties' to it, which of course have been disproved (hence this thread).


I mean, Paul Manafort chaired the campaign and Richard Gates work with it along George Papadopolous. They had various improprieties they had to answer for in a court of law and even some suspect dealing and contact with the Russian government, as did Michael Flynn. I can see why the campaign was investigated and clearly proper vetting was not done for the campaign at the least. 

As for the issue of Trump being exonerated: www.apnews.com: AP FACT CHECK: Trump hails an exoneration not offered



> THE FACTS:* It was not a total vindication. Mueller’s exact words in the report, as quoted by the attorney general, say otherwise: “While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”*
> 
> The summary by Barr notes Mueller did not “draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction,” setting out evidence for both sides and leaving the question unanswered. Barr wrote in the summary that ultimately he decided as attorney general that the evidence developed by Muller was “not sufficient” to establish that Trump committed obstruction of justice.
> 
> Barr’s summary also notes that Mueller did not find that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia. To prove a crime, Mueller must generally meet a standard of proving an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. *The summary did not clear the president of improper behavior regarding Russia but did not establish that “he was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference,” Mueller said in a passage from the report quoted by Barr.*





Anon Raccoon said:


> People often forget the order of justice because of hatred for Trump:
> 
> Step 1: Identify a crime
> Step 2: Look for clues and then Identify the people responsible for the crime
> ...


There were a few Republicans supportive of the investigation, the investigation was initiated by a Republican, and it was carried out by a Republican. There were also many Republican cautioning Trump against firing Mueller. The one thing about this investigation that set it apart from other 12 investigations into Trump is that it was truly bipartisan and fairly neutral in search of the facts. 

Now, as @Fallowfox said, Trump publicly calling for Russia to hack the DNC, facetiously or not. He fired James Comey, who was the sitting Republican FBI Director investigating him, which was highly improper. He is surrounding by aides and campaign workers who have had improper and illegal contacts with members of the Russian government. His son met with a lawyer with ties to the Russian government who is currently indicted, through the investigation, because he thought he could obtain dirt on a political opponent. 

It is not hard to see why Trump wound up investigated or why he has not been fully exonerated.


----------



## WolfyAmbassador (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> From the looks of the media the past 2 days it seems like they are going to stick to whole the 'Trump is a criminal' thing.


 It's unfortunate that they are probably going to get away with much more on top of all the damage and division they've already caused.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Unicon said:


> For a prejury trap to work, by definition the accused must lie to be ensnared. Don't lie to federal agents or commit crimes and you are as good as gold.



There is a reason they call it a perjury _trap. _There may not be any evidence of Russian collusion, but if they want to get him they would just have to ask him very specific questions about random conversations he has had whether or not he remembers them. If he is incorrect about the details of any of the conversations, boom perjury. The risk of this is zero if you don't talk. Smart move by Trumps legal team.



Unicon said:


> I mean, Paul Manafort chaired the campaign and Richard Gates work with it along George Papadopolous. They had various improprieties they had to answer for in a court of law and even some suspect dealing and contact with the Russian government, as did Michael Flynn. I can see why the campaign was investigated and clearly proper vetting was not done for the campaign at the least.
> 
> As for the issue of Trump being exonerated: www.apnews.com: AP FACT CHECK: Trump hails an exoneration not offered





Unicon said:


> It is not hard to see why Trump wound up investigated or why he has not been fully exonerated.



Investigations cannot even 'exonerate' people. It doesn't prove innocence. Nothing in the legal system proves innocence. (in a trial the verdict would be 'not guilty' they don't say innocent). All the investigation can, and did do is show that there is no evidence of the crime. Some may call that exoneration.


----------



## dragon-in-sight (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Yes it does.



This Stimulus was signed in 2009 when US economy was still overshadowed by the 2008 financial crisis. With out this effort US economy would have hit far worse. And at the end of Obamas second term economy was more stable then before the crisis. This is still more than Mr. Trumps Tax cuts of 2017 have added to long term stability and job gain.

www.marketwatch.com: It’s official: The Trump tax cuts were a bust


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

dragon-in-sight said:


> This Stimulus was signed in 2009 when US economy was still overshadowed by the 2008 financial crisis. With out this effort US economy would have hit far worse. And at the end of Obamas second term economy was more stable then before the crisis. This is still more than Mr. Trumps Tax cuts of 2017 have added to long term stability and job gain.
> 
> www.marketwatch.com: It’s official: The Trump tax cuts were a bust



The link you posted doesn't even deny that the stock market, GDP growth, and corporate expansions were higher than they would have been otherwise. 

They dont make it very clear at all how the heck they came to that conclusion given how positive the data was. It was like they list the positive effects of the tax cut, and declared it a failure? Strange article.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

You know, not everyone has two parents who are working. I spent most of my childhood with just my mom, and practically lived and breathed chicken nuggets and ramen. I'm lucky that I was able to have two parents later down the line to support me, but there are many kids who were like me who didn't have a parent with a stable income, and who had to make do with whatever was in the fridge for the week. 

I still don't understand why people think it's such a big deal to pay for other people's food and homes and clothing. Like the world would be a better place if people stopped thinking about what they can get out of it. Sometimes it feels like empathy has just disappeared from some people's minds, and they can't even spend a dollar to help feed some poor kids cause "They're not my kids, they're not my problem" which is a really fucked up way of thinking. If the government isn't supposed to help the people who live under it, than why even have a government at all? If someone is too busy trying to afford microwavable hot pockets at walmart, than why should they care at all what the government thinks? The government won't help them, and the government doesn't even think it has too, so why even bother?

There's nothing wrong with trying to help people a little, and there's nothing wrong with giving up some of your money to help others in need. People really ought to stop doing math every time someone even remotely suggests helping poor people. Just help poor people. Is it really such an evil thing to try to spend a little more to make sure everyone has food and clothing and a house? It's not like they're asking you to give up _your _house and clothes and food.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> You know, not everyone has two parents who are working. I spent most of my childhood with just my mom, and practically lived and breathed chicken nuggets and ramen. I'm lucky that I was able to have two parents later down the line to support me, but there are many kids who were like me who didn't have a parent with a stable income, and who had to make do with whatever was in the fridge for the week.
> 
> I still don't understand why people think it's such a big deal to pay for other people's food and homes and clothing. Like the world would be a better place if people stopped thinking about what they can get out of it. Sometimes it feels like empathy has just disappeared from some people's minds, and they can't even spend a dollar to help feed some poor kids cause "They're not my kids, they're not my problem" which is a really fucked up way of thinking. If the government isn't supposed to help the people who live under it, than why even have a government at all? If someone is too busy trying to afford microwavable hot pockets at walmart, than why should they care at all what the government thinks? The government won't help them, and the government doesn't even think it has too, so why even bother?
> 
> There's nothing wrong with trying to help people a little, and there's nothing wrong with giving up some of your money to help others in need. People really ought to stop doing math every time someone even remotely suggests helping poor people. Just help poor people. Is it really such an evil thing to try to spend a little more to make sure everyone has food and clothing and a house? It's not like they're asking you to give up _your _house and clothes and food.



Charity > Taxes


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Charity > Taxes



okay so whats your point? I don't understand why you feel like your tax money going into other people's wellbeing is such a bad idea.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

heck why not have both charity and tax money? the more people who can get help the better. who cares if it costs money as long as we can help other people.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> okay so whats your point? I don't understand why you feel like your tax money going into other people's wellbeing is such a bad idea.



I work hard for my money, I should get to chose who I help with it.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> I work hard for my money, I should get to chose who I help with it.


thats literally the most selfish thng i've ever heard anyone say.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> thats literally the most selfish thng i've ever heard anyone say.



Is it selfish to do hard work to earn money for myself?


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> thats literally the most selfish thng i've ever heard anyone say.



I've been viewing this discussion, and I felt that this video was quite relevant to it.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I've been viewing this discussion, and I felt that this video was quite relevant to it.



I like the alt right play book.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Fallowfox said:


> I've been viewing this discussion, and I felt that this video was quite relevant to it.



Interesting video, sounds like a leftist having an argument with himself with what he thinks the other sides talking points would be


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Is it selfish to do hard work to earn money for myself?



no, thats not why your selfish. You're selfish because you wanna pick and choose who gets what based on how much money they make and the things they own, when thats not why you should give people in need things. You give people things because they are in need of it, especially if the thing they need is something essential like education and food and housing. You are completely ignoring the multiple factors that stop people from "just working hard and earning money for themselves" like i don't understand why you're pretending we live in a world where everyone has a job, and everone can support themselves, when you know we don't You know that there are people out there who have a job and kids, and who are barely scraping by, but you wanna brush that off and say "lol just work harder" like that's the solution to the problem.

People should have access to food and shelter and clothing regardless of their social status and people who do have all of those things should give some of their money so that everyone has the things they need. It's not a horrible, egregious thing to give money so everyone can make it.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Interesting video, sounds like a leftist having an argument with himself with what he thinks the other sides talking points would be


and im beginning to think you have absolutely nothing to add onto this conversation because everytime anyone posts evidence against what ever you claim you just ignore it.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> and im beginning to think you have absolutely nothing to add onto this conversation because everytime anyone posts evidence against what ever you claim you just ignore it.



Are you trying to call that video 'evidence'?


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Are you trying to call that video 'evidence'?



honestly, i sat here and watched you brush off someones huge mega thread of evidence to back up their claim as nothing but conspiracy when you were having a discussion, as if you didn't click on any of the links, or you didn't read the opening to what they wrote at all. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you're bad at reading things, but it's 5 in the afternoon where i am right now, and you're still going at it with the same argument even though its been debunked already.

Also you replied to the comment about the alt right play book like 5 seconds after it was posted here, so I doubt you even actually watched the video. You just heard it was a video that disagreed largely with what you agree with and then ignored it completly, brushing it off as leftist bullshit, like you do with literally anyone who has a discussion with you.

Hell i even watched someone do the math and explain to you word for word why someone who has a middle class job wouldn't be able to support their own kid, and all you did was tell them their math was off without explaining _why _it was off. I'm really tired of getting into arguments with people on this site because everytime i do, my opponent just doesn't know how to cite sources, they don't look at the evidence when you give it to them, and they just ignore everything thrown at them all the while insulting me and acting all pretentious as if they have made a point, when really they haven't

I think im done arguing with you, because i could pull every source from the far reaches of the world and you wouldn't read any of them, so why should i bother any further with this discussion?


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> honestly, i sat here and watched you brush off someones huge mega thread of evidence to back up their claim as nothing but conspiracy when you were having a discussion, as if you didn't click on any of the links, or you didn't read the opening to what they wrote at all. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you're bad at reading things, but it's 5 in the afternoon where i am right now, and you're still going at it with the same argument even though its been debunked already.



Be more specific, you are speaking in generalities. What topic are you even talking about?



Liseran Thistle said:


> Also you replied to the comment about the alt right play book like 5 seconds after it was posted here, so I doubt you even actually watched the video. You just heard it was a video that disagreed largely with what you don't agree with and then ignored it completly, brushing it off as leftist bullshit, like you do with literally anyone who has a discussion with you.



I watched about 5 minutes of it, that is how long it took me to realize that it was this guy debating himself with what he thinks right wing arguments would be. It's a real eye roller.



Liseran Thistle said:


> Hell i even watched someone do the math and explain to you word for word why someone who has a middle class job wouldn't be able to support their own kid, and all you did was tell them their math was off without explaining _why _it was off.



That whole 'calculating minimum wage bills' thing was totally absurd because of the amount of assumptions that are required to make any estimate work. I could go into great detail about that but this thread is about the MULLER INVESTIGATION not how to pay bills if your skills are worth minimum wage.



Liseran Thistle said:


> while insulting me and acting all pretentious as if they have made a point, when really they haven't



 I don't insult people



Liseran Thistle said:


> I think im done arguing with you, because i could pull every source from the far reaches of the world and you wouldn't read any of them, so why should i bother any further with this discussion?



If it is on the Muller Topic, and the 'source' is not someone else's opinion piece, or a hundred pages long then sure try me. Not sure what kind of 'source' you could find tho, the facts on this topic pretty clear.


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 27, 2019)

I wouldn't mind the whole report to be released to be honest.

~Edit~
Forgot to add.. With the exception of documents related to people's personal privacy, obviously.


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Be more specific, you are speaking in generalities. What topic are you even talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow. I'm proud of you. You actually took the time to read what i posted this time instead just ignoring it completly.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> Wow. I'm proud of you. You actually took the time to read what i posted this time instead just ignoring it completly.



Have we even talked before?? I don't remember you. Are you projecting your frustration with someone else onto me?


----------



## Liseran Thistle (Mar 27, 2019)

Anon Raccoon said:


> Have we even talked before?? I don't remember you. Are you projecting your frustration with someone else onto me?


I'm pretty sure we have met before, because you used the term "opinion pieces" when responding to me, and last time i heard that phrase I had a very long conversation with someone about how opinion pieces aren't real at all.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 27, 2019)

@Liseran Thistle For some reason I want to apologise to you for having to deal with this lol. x3

Unfortunately this is the nature of a lot of online spaces.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (Mar 27, 2019)

It seems there's alot of attitude in this thread from all sides, all around.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 27, 2019)

Liseran Thistle said:


> I'm pretty sure we have met before, because you used the term "opinion pieces" when responding to me, and last time i heard that phrase I had a very long conversation with someone about how opinion pieces aren't real at all.



I don't recall ever having any long conversations with you, it probably was not me.


----------



## Miles Marsalis (Mar 29, 2019)

I don't want to get into the weeds too much before the full report comes out, but let me make a few hella late clarifications.


Anon Raccoon said:


> There is a reason they call it a perjury _trap. _There may not be any evidence of Russian collusion, but if they want to get him they would just have to ask him very specific questions about random conversations he has had whether or not he remembers them. If he is incorrect about the details of any of the conversations, boom perjury. The risk of this is zero if you don't talk. Smart move by Trumps legal team.


He can say he does not recall if he doesn't remember the exact details. His lawyers would have reminded him this.



Anon Raccoon said:


> Investigations cannot even 'exonerate' people. It doesn't prove innocence. Nothing in the legal system proves innocence. (in a trial the verdict would be 'not guilty' they don't say innocent). All the investigation can, and did do is show that there is no evidence of the crime. Some may call that exoneration.


The AP news piece I handed you clearly said there was some substantial evidence wrongdoing, just not enough for an indictment yet. This is why I said wait for the full report before we do victory lap.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (Mar 29, 2019)

Well I dropped in to see where this thread has gone. Apparently to the bottom of the ocean.


----------



## Anon Raccoon (Mar 29, 2019)

Unicon said:


> He can say he does not recall if he doesn't remember the exact details. His lawyers would have reminded him this.



If he says 'I do not recall' then what is the point in 'talking' to him in the first place. It would just be a more time wasteful way of not talking.



Unicon said:


> The AP news piece I handed you clearly said there was some substantial evidence wrongdoing, just not enough for an indictment yet. This is why I said wait for the full report before we do victory lap.



If you expect the public revealed report to contradict barr dont hold your breath


----------



## Yakamaru (Mar 30, 2019)

I say let them reveal the whole report with the exception of the parts that contain personal private information. When it gets released, it will shut people up once and for all, and we can move on from this debunked conspiracy theory.


----------

