Trump and Russiagate - Page 233 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Hindsite
#15012795
jimjam wrote:Russia interfering in America's elections? Why is this not a big deal for you?

It did not seem to be a big deal to Obama. All he said he did about it was to tell Putin to "cut it out."

jimjam wrote:A lot of folks must work more than one job simply to feed themselves and their families because the only jobs available to them pay shit. It's called underemployment.

Obama did not do anything about that either and neither will any of the current Democrats. They just talk shit.
#15012844
jimjam wrote:Russia interfering in America's elections? Why is this not a big deal for you?

It's not the biggest interference we face by a long shot. The biggest interference in our elections come from China and Mexico. Tertiary interference we get from Israel. Our establishment doesn't care about that, but they seem to have a real hard on for Russia. I'm personally not all that worried about Russia. I am, however, concerned that we are governed by people who do not have the best interests of the American people at heart. So I'm more concerned with getting those people out of bureaucracies and elected offices. We will not be able to stop China, Mexico, Israel or Russia among others from effecting our elections until we eliminate the politicians who are paid directly or indirectly by them. That's why Russia's interference isn't as problematic as Hillary Clinton paying British spies and Russians to come up with a phony dossier, feeding it to the FBI, the FISA courts and the media. Russia is nowhere near as big a problem as the Clintons.

Hindsite wrote:It did not seem to be a big deal to Obama. All he said he did about it was to tell Putin to "cut it out."

Well, that's about what their activities really warranted until people learned what Hillary Clinton was saying behind closed doors to Goldman Sachs, etc. Most of their emails were boring and irrelevant. Illustrating the collusion between the media and the DNC, and Hillary saying different things to different audiences was an eye opener for people who refuse to believe their lying eyes and ears otherwise.

Hindiste wrote:Obama did not do anything about that either and neither will any of the current Democrats. They just talk shit.

They deliberately made it worse during a recession. Trump has made that a lot better for people. It's still not as good as it could be if we could just raise tariffs on China and Mexico and throw out the illegal aliens.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15012916
Hindsite wrote:It did not seem to be a big deal to Obama

Hindsite wrote:Obama did not do anything


blackjack21 wrote: isn't as problematic as Hillary Clinton

blackjack21 wrote:what Hillary Clinton was saying behind closed doors

blackjack21 wrote:as big a problem as the Clintons


Certainly ….. and let's not forget Benjamin Harrison. Harrison favored the passage of the McKinley Tariff of 1890, a bill protecting American corporations with high import duties that resulted in higher consumer prices and lower wages.
User avatar
By BigSteve
#15012924
jimjam wrote:I agree and am also glad to see that you acknowledge the obvious that Russia did interfere in the 2016 election


For which the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the previous administration. Obama was either too ignorant to identify it or too inept to stop it...
User avatar
By Finfinder
#15012936
BigSteve wrote:For which the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the previous administration. Obama was either too ignorant to identify it or too inept to stop it...


You left out the more probable, he facilitated it.
#15013015
I guess I missed out the point at which this turned out to be the Obama Conspiracy Theory thread. :lol:

Trump is guilty, however, of Obstruction of Justice, which is a real crime in the USA. Whether or not anyone has the balls to actual prosecute, is another thing. Americans seem to lack the willpower to do things that are right, these days.

Well, unless it's an excuse to invade someone, I guess...
#15013020
@Godstud

Godstud wrote:Trump is guilty, however, of Obstruction of Justice, which is a real crime in the USA. Whether or not anyone has the balls to actual prosecute, is another thing. Americans seem to lack the willpower to do things that are right, these days.


Trump is absolutely guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice. I also think he is guilty of treason by openly stating he would take foreign help given he is an American citizen who owes loyalty to the United States and swore the oath of office of the US Presidency. Trump right now essentially is above the law and is not being held accountable like he should be.

But that's how fascist dictatorships work and not republics. Right now, what you are witnessing is the rise of lawlessness and fascism in the US. Trump is a symptom of the problem and it's a problem that started many decades beforehand. Wealth and thus power has been concentrated in the hands of the few.

People who voted for Trump voted for him because they perceived a status threat that came from the election of Obama and that is mainly wealthy whites who saw the election of Obama as a status threat to their excessive wealth and power. The people that currently hold the real power here in the US are the top 1% of wealthy whites and they use race to keep everybody else divided and thus not united against them. It's a divide and conquer strategy.
#15013026
Godstud wrote:Trump is guilty, however, of Obstruction of Justice, which is a real crime in the USA.

He is not guilty of obstruction of justice. Even the Mueller report makes that point, and then goes on an extremely long tangent weaving legal theories that would only apply to a president, which was clearly meant to lead Congress down an impeachment path based on an obstruction of justice that cannot stand up in court. As it stands, Trump would not be convicted of obstruction of justice in a court of law as: 1) there was no underlying crime to obstruct; 2) he did not withhold evidence from prosecutors or investigators; and 3) he did not make any false statements under oath to prosecutors or investigators. He can yammer on about how the investigation is a "witch hunt" on Twitter all he wants. That is not illegal. If it was, the Mueller report would have pointed that out and cited the statute, the evidence, and the burden of proof. Yet, Mueller didn't do that, because it's not illegal. Criminal defendants in the United States have the right to deny both the facts and the law. They can also criticize prosecutors until a judge puts a gag order on them. Since Mueller didn't charge Trump with anything, Trump was legally within his rights to bash Mueller all he wanted.

Politics_Observer wrote:I also think he is guilty of treason by openly stating he would take foreign help given he is an American citizen who owes loyalty to the United States and swore the oath of office of the US Presidency.

Stating you would commit a crime is not a crime. Perhaps you didn't know that. However, Hillary Clinton did take foreign help. She not only took it, she procured it with campaign donations, and went to great lengths to prevent discovery of that fact by laundering the money through the DNC, Perkins Coie, and Fusion GPS, before it reached Christopher Steele's hands and then off to Russian sources. By your definition, Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason.

In actual fact, Hillary Clinton is guilty of a campaign violation for sure. Others in her orbit are guilty of knowingly submitting a false report to law enforcement; within law enforcement of knowingly using a false report to obtain warrants to utilize government surveillance technology; knowingly using a false report to intimidate the executive officer of the United States (blackmail); and many other crimes. By your own standards, Hillary Clinton is guilty of treason. Trump is not. Of course, Hillary Clinton couldn't be charged with treason either, because the US has not declared a war on Russia. Treason and war are defined in the constitution, so they cannot be twisted into the modern system of keeping World War II going under the aegis of the UN. We have treaties of peace and diplomatic relations with all of the countries we were at war with during WWII, so technically nobody can be charged with treason at the present moment.

Politics_Observer wrote:People who voted for Trump voted for him because they perceived a status threat that came from the election of Obama and that is mainly wealthy whites who saw the election of Obama as a status threat to their excessive wealth and power.

That's pure bullshit. There are not 60M+ people of great wealth. Trump won with people who had no college education. He won with working class whites. In fact, if the Democratic party had not engineered Black Lives Matter, Hillary Clinton would have lost to Bernie Sanders, who beat her with white voters. She won, because Obama and the DNC generated the Black Lives Matter movement, and because of the pledged delegates that party operatives get in order to override the will of voters. Without those two factors, it would have been Trump vs. Sanders in 2016, and the Democrats would have had a chance.

Politics_Observer wrote:The people that currently hold the real power here in the US are the top 1% of wealthy whites and they use race to keep everybody else divided and thus not united against them.

Yeah. They import 10s of millions of illegal immigrants to drive down the wages of working class whites and blacks, and then tell blacks and illegal aliens that white working class people who are struggling to make ends meet or are otherwise out of work have "white privilege" and are "deplorable." Many of those people face joblessness, because jobs are shipped overseas to China, Mexico, etc. and get to be imported and sold duty free in the US. Apparently, this 1% you speak of forgot that these "deplorable" people can also vote for a party other than the Democrats.
By Hindsite
#15013031
Godstud wrote:Trump is guilty, however, of Obstruction of Justice, which is a real crime in the USA. Whether or not anyone has the balls to actual prosecute, is another thing. Americans seem to lack the willpower to do things that are right, these days.

Not true. Even the Mueller Report did not fine obstruction of justice. He only listed instances in which Trump might have attempted to obstruct their investigation, but was clearly unsuccessful. Mueller choose not to make a legal decision on that issue, but Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr made the legal decision that Trump did not obstruct justice. So that issue is legally over. The Democrats just don't want to accept that Trump did not commit a crime, so they are trying to drum up one.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15013040
Hindsite wrote:He only listed instances in which Trump might have attempted to obstruct their investigation, but was clearly unsuccessful.
Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime. You simply have to establish intent, and motive, both of which are present.

Unscrewing the screws on a signpost will get you charged with theft, since the intent was to steal the sign.
#15013046
@blackjack21

blackjack21 wrote:That's pure bullshit. There are not 60M+ people of great wealth. Trump won with people who had no college education. He won with working class whites. In fact, if the Democratic party had not engineered Black Lives Matter, Hillary Clinton would have lost to Bernie Sanders, who beat her with white voters. She won, because Obama and the DNC generated the Black Lives Matter movement, and because of the pledged delegates that party operatives get in order to override the will of voters. Without those two factors, it would have been Trump vs. Sanders in 2016, and the Democrats would have had a chance.


Pure Bullshit my ass. Just a few weeks ago I posted this

Diana C. Mutz of the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences wrote:To date, the dominant narrative explaining the outcome of the 2016 presidential election has been that working class voters rose up in opposition to being left behind economically (2). Those who lost jobs or experienced stagnant wages purportedly punished the incumbent party. These claims were made on the basis of aggregate demographic patterns tied to voters’ education levels, patterns that could occur for a multitude of reasons. This study evaluates the “left behind” thesis as well as dominant group status threat as an alternative narrative explaining Trump’s popular appeal and ultimate election to the presidency. Evidence points overwhelmingly to perceived status threat among high-status groups as the key motivation underlying Trump support. White Americans’ declining numerical dominance in the United States together with the rising status of African Americans and American insecurity about whether the United States is still the dominant global economic superpower combined to prompt a classic defensive reaction among members of dominant groups.


Here is a second quote:

Diana C. Mutz of the Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences wrote:One way to understand the surprising public acceptance of openly disrespectful statements about women, minorities, and foreigners is as manifestations of preexisting racist and sexist views; in other words, the 2016 election raised the salience of people’s preexisting views on these topics, so that they mattered more to presidential vote choice in 2016 (5). However, as with the economic hardship thesis, the timing of Trump’s rise to power is curious. How is it that the same American public that elected an African American to two terms as US President subsequently elected a president known to have publicly made what many consider to be racist and sexist statements?

A possible explanation is dominant group status threat. When members of a dominant group feel threatened, several well-established reactions help these groups regain a sense of dominance and wellbeing. First, perceived threat makes status quo, hierarchical social and political arrangements more attractive (18). Thus, conservatism surges along with a nostalgia for the stable hierarchies of the past. Perceived threat also triggers defense of the dominant ingroup, a greater emphasis on the importance of conformity to group norms, and increased outgroup negativity (19, 20). It is psychologically valuable to see one’s self as part of a dominant group; therefore, when group members feel threatened, this prompts defensive reactions. It is precisely this form of group threat that may have motivated Trump supporters (21).

Two forms of group status threat are especially prominent in the United States today. For the first time since Europeans arrived in this country, white Americans are being told that they will soon be a minority race (22). The declining white share of the national population is unlikely to change white Americans’ status as the most economically well-off racial group, but symbolically, it threatens some whites’ sense of dominance over social and political priorities. Furthermore, when confronted with evidence of racial progress, whites feel threatened and experience lower levels of self-worth relative to a control group. They also perceive greater antiwhite bias as a means of regaining those lost feelings of self-worth
(23).


https://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/E4330

Then their is this compiled by Edison Research:
Image

You can see that majority of Americans from this data shows those who supported Trump were not experiencing economic hardship and were pretty well off. Trump won over individual voters who made $50,000 and on up. So, blackjack, you don't get to argue with me based on how you feel, you argue with me based on the facts and evidence. If you can't present facts or evidence to back up your position then your whole position is just a pile shit. It's based on nothing . It has nothing of real substance to back it up. So, get on google, start using google, stop being lazy and make a case or just go home because you don't bring anything of substance to the table! Nobody cares about your feelings in a logical debate. We just care about what real facts that you can use as evidence to support your position that you bring to the table and the logical conclusions a reasonable prudent person would make from those facts. Your feelings blackjack21 just don't constitute good evidence in making a case for your position. Either use factual evidence from respected and reliable sources to make a case to refute my position or go home.

https://www.businessinsider.com/exit-po ... it-polls-4

References-

Mutz, Diana C. "Status Threat, Not Economic Hardship, Explains the 2016 Presidential Vote." PNAS, 8 May 2018, http://www.pnas.org/content/115/19/E4330. Accessed 19 June 2019.

Gould, Skye, and Rebecca Harrington. "7 Charts Show Who Propelled Trump to Victory." Business Insider, 10 Nov. 2016, http://www.businessinsider.com/exit-pol ... it-polls-4. Accessed 19 June 2019.
Last edited by Politics_Observer on 20 Jun 2019 04:50, edited 3 times in total.
By Hindsite
#15013049
Godstud wrote:Attempting to commit a crime is still a crime. You simply have to establish intent, and motive, both of which are present.

Trump did not attempt to commit a crime and even Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and Attorney General William Barr agreed with that. I am sorry that you are too ignorant to understand that.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15013066
1,000 prosecutors have disagreed with "paid-for" Barr, and other Trump stooges.

FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS RENEW STATEMENT THAT TRUMP WOULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED IF HE WEREN’T PRESIDENT
More than 1,000 bipartisan former prosecutors have now signed their names on a petition maintaining that if Trump weren't president of the United States, he would have been indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice.
https://www.newsweek.com/former-federal ... nt-1439716
By Hindsite
#15013069
Godstud wrote:1,000 prosecutors have disagreed with "paid-for" Barr, and other Trump stooges.

FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS RENEW STATEMENT THAT TRUMP WOULD HAVE BEEN INDICTED IF HE WEREN’T PRESIDENT
More than 1,000 bipartisan former prosecutors have now signed their names on a petition maintaining that if Trump weren't president of the United States, he would have been indicted on multiple charges for obstruction of justice.
https://www.newsweek.com/former-federal ... nt-1439716

Those are all from biased democrats that don't like Trump. So I discount all that as meaningless nonsense.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15013081
Look up the word, Bi-partisan, and get back to me, @Hindsite

:roll:
#15013101
Politics_Observer wrote:Just a few weeks ago I posted this

You can post whatever you like. The fact of the matter is that blue collar workers in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan voted increasingly for Trump. That was the deciding margin in the 2016 election. Hillary Clinton won among the highly educated white elites on the coasts. In fact, she won a majority of the vote by doing just that. Look at @Drlee's tagline chiding Trump for boasting about winning among the undereducated. Hillary just wasn't able to replicate that outside of Bosh-Wash, Chicago and the West Coast, possibly because she didn't want to campaign among the "deplorables."

Politics_Observer wrote:You can see that majority of Americans from this data shows those who supported Trump were not experiencing economic hardship and were pretty well off. Trump won over individual voters who made $50,000 and on up.

That doesn't support the electoral college outcome, because there are plenty of poor people in places where Trump won a majority. These types of exit polls aren't controlling for geography, which is critically important in presidential elections.

Politics_Observer wrote:Trump won over individual voters who made $50,000 and on up.

$50k was a good living in 1986. In 2016, those people wanted a raise and were tired of trade agreements and illegal aliens depression wages. So they voted for Trump--the ONLY candidate addressing those issues.

Godstud wrote:1,000 prosecutors have disagreed with "paid-for" Barr, and other Trump stooges.

Clearly, that doesn't matter.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15013199
Politics_Observer wrote:@blackjack21


Blackjack21 is a smart guy but his response to anything at all that reflects poorly on Obese Donald is pretty much that Obama/Hillary are worse. Gets boring after awhile.
By Hindsite
#15013333
jimjam wrote:Blackjack21 is a smart guy but his response to anything at all that reflects poorly on Obese Donald is pretty much that Obama/Hillary are worse. Gets boring after awhile.

Boring, but true.
HalleluYah
#15013444
@jimjam @blackjack21

Blackjack might very well be intelligent but he is also ignorant and lazy. One can be ignorant and yet still intelligent. I have met many intelligent people who at the same time also happen to be ignorant and lazy people. Intelligence and ignorance are not the same thing. Blackjack doesn't post data and evidence to counter any of my claims. Instead, because he is too lazy to do his own research, he tries to discredit evidence presented to him that do not fit his pre-concieved notions of reality. He is unwilling to be open minded enough to consider that his pre-conceived notions on reality could very well be wrong or misplaced. He thinks he's always right. This is what makes him ignorant.

But his attempt to discredit the evidence by with his statements on control groups rings rather hollow. Perhaps if he did some work and research and presented his evidence for his assertion that directly attacks and disproves my evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt then reasonable prudent people could reconsider.

But until then, his refusal to drop any pre-concieved notions he has of reality when confronted with evidence that challenges those pre-concieved notions just shows that he's ignorant. I haven't seen him ever present any evidence or facts that support any of his positions. I base my views of reality on evidence and facts and the logical conclusions that a reasonable prudent person would draw from those evidence and facts.

I do not base them on my feelings in the moment and if my pre-concieved notions are dis-proven, I am open minded enough to drop them and accept the solid evidence presented to me. If blackjack wishes to be taken seriously then he'll have to do the same thing and also do some research and work to present evidence for his case. He hasn't made a case for his position so I can't take it seriously. My professors who instruct me are the same way. They don't care about my feelings on a matter, they only care about the evidence and the logical conclusions I have researched and developed.
#15013526
Politics_Observer wrote:Blackjack doesn't post data and evidence to counter any of my claims.

I posted to you the political faction that made a difference in Trump getting elected. He did the same thing Reagan did. He appealed to blue collar voters that the Republican establishment types routinely ignore. Trump met with labor union leaders. He included them from the inception of his presidency, because his life experience involved working with them. Obama was backed by unions. Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were not. Although, George W. Bush did work with Pelosi to create the TSA, which Pelosi wanted for the union jobs.

Politics_Observer wrote:He is unwilling to be open minded enough to consider that his pre-conceived notions on reality could very well be wrong or misplaced. He thinks he's always right. This is what makes him ignorant.

Ok. Considering that rich people aren't a majority, let's just say you are right. Rich people elected Trump. So what? Since the stock market is up, he should probably win again, I suppose. Does it make you feel better saying white people decided to vote for a white guy when the two candidates in the race were white? Let's assume you are right. Exactly where does that leave us?

Politics_Observer wrote:If blackjack wishes to be taken seriously then he'll have to do the same thing and also do some research and work to present evidence for his case.

You don't have to take me seriously. If you don't understand why Trump won in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and Michigan, you probably won't have a very clear understanding of how presidential races are won and lost. Those studies may provide you with a great deal of comfort and certainty. Most of the voters are already decided in presidential elections. Winning independents and swing states is critical in presidential elections, because presidential elections are determined by the electoral college, not popular votes. Hillary won a political majority and came away empty-handed. It's the second time in 20 years the Democrats have made this mistake. Al Gore didn't even win his home state in 2000, which is unheard of. Hell, even Mondale won his home state in 1984 when everything went to Reagan. The Republicans haven't won Wisconsin in a presidential election since Reagan in 1984. Even Bush I lost Wisconsin. So should we lay the blame on all the rich white people in Wisconsin?

Politics_Observer wrote:My professors who instruct me are the same way. They don't care about my feelings on a matter, they only care about the evidence and the logical conclusions I have researched and developed.

Well, you should get good grades with that analysis, because most college professors vote Democrat. However, your analysis like those of Gore and Hillary Clinton fails to take into consideration the state-by-state electoral college breakdown. For that reason, I wouldn't hire you as a campaign strategist.
  • 1
  • 231
  • 232
  • 233
  • 234
  • 235
  • 249
EU-BREXIT

If Brexit... With 110 pages of legalese to trawl[…]

I believe foxdemon was just trying to point out t[…]

Better to incentivise the switch to suppliers tha[…]

Ukrainegate

So you need to destroy the country to save it. […]