TrumPutinGate

#14,801
#14,801
lawgator1 said:
Let me get this straight.

It was the right that championed maintaining government intrusion into private lives to detect illegal activity tied to foreign governments or interests, most notably terrorism.

Now that this very same mechanism has been used to attempt to secure evidence which might implicate a Republican president or his campaign in dealings with a foreign government, suddenly you are aghast at the mechanism?

And its Fox leading the charge with articles like this?

200w.gif
Click to expand...

put a D in front of this guys name and you'd be creating 30 threads crying about overreach.
 
#14,802
#14,802
theFallGuy said:
This seems totally reasonable. Apparently we live in the Soviet Union now

Mueller investigating Manafort for decade-old crimes: report

"The FBI warrant to raid Manafort's home in July said that Mueller’s investigation into Manafort is stretching back to January 2006, according to CNN.

This points to Mueller stretching his probe far beyond Manafort’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election and examining President Trump's former campaign head for other crimes as well."
Click to expand...


Depends on the applicable statute of limitations. We don't know what it is, yet, as no one has been charged. Yet.

But hey, don't worry. Once this is all done and it comes out that the Trump campaign actively encouraged Russian government intrusion into our election then you can ride your high horse all you want that the only reason we uncovered the truth despite Trump's obstructionist tactics was because Mueller was too thorough.

No problem. Good luck with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#14,804
#14,804
lawgator1 said:
Depends on the applicable statute of limitations. We don't know what it is, yet, as no one has been charged. Yet.

But hey, don't worry. Once this is all done and it comes out that the Trump campaign actively encouraged Russian government intrusion into our election then you can ride your high horse all you want that the only reason we uncovered the truth despite Trump's obstructionist tactics was because Mueller was too thorough.

No problem. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

"encouraged" what does that even mean? Is encouraging a crime now in your gestapo world?
 
#14,807
#14,807
lawgator1 said:
That's really a side issue.

Point 1: This is further evidence of Russian meddling in our election, something that Trump and his legion of mindless followers have yet to really acknowledge out of fear it undermines his legitimacy. Which it most certainly does.

Point 2: The question naturally arises as to whether the Trump campaign was aware that this was going on.

Point 3: The question naturally arises whether the Trump campaign encouraged this activity by the Russians.

Point 4: The question naturally arises whether the Trump campaign intimated to the Russians that he would look favorably on them if he won by virtue of their having done this.

Point 5: The question naturally arises whether the Trump campaign in any way coordinated with this endeavor by, for example, providing information on what stories or ads to promote, or where to promote them to the audiences likely to be most susceptible to them.

As I understand it, FB has the ability to target your ads, and an account has the ability to focus itself, in areas of geographic interest, or in areas of certain demographic ranges, or both.

There is understandably great interest as to whether this was all coordinated, including with or by the campaign, to influence elections in key electoral states or gender, age ranges, etc.
Click to expand...

hate to break it to you counselor, but you have 2 points, not 5.

1. did Trump know? Answer to that so far is a big fat we have absolutely no reason to believe they did. 50,000 and less than 500 fake people does not a big movement make to grab anyone's attention. even if Trump knew it was going on I don't know what he as a private citizen could do? Also seems like if there is any problem FB is first in line on the chopping block, that should be just as fun to watch as losing a president.
2. did Trump engage the Russians before or after this. again, zero evidence of it.

the second would be the crime imo. the first would make him a slime ball which he already is, reputation confirmed.

and there were 500 fake accounts that were shut down soon after they started in 2015. hardly swaying the election. this is another thing you guys can't put together. the timeline doesn't add up. you guys act like the Russians changed someones mind with zero proof. and when they would have changed mines was in 2015, way before the election and not winning him swing states.
 
#14,809
#14,809
LouderVol said:
hate to break it to you counselor, but you have 2 points, not 5.

1. did Trump know? Answer to that so far is a big fat we have absolutely no reason to believe they did. 50,000 and less than 500 fake people does not a big movement make to grab anyone's attention. even if Trump knew it was going on I don't know what he as a private citizen could do? Also seems like if there is any problem FB is first in line on the chopping block, that should be just as fun to watch as losing a president.
2. did Trump engage the Russians before or after this. again, zero evidence of it.

the second would be the crime imo. the first would make him a slime ball which he already is, reputation confirmed.

and there were 500 fake accounts that were shut down soon after they started in 2015. hardly swaying the election. this is another thing you guys can't put together. the timeline doesn't add up. you guys act like the Russians changed someones mind with zero proof. and when they would have changed mines was in 2015, way before the election and not winning him swing states.
Click to expand...


I reject your proposed standard of proof. There is no way to go voter-by-voter and read their minds and find out if they voted for Trump and not Clinton because of Russian-sponsored ad # 422.

The real question is whether Trump's campaign knew of and accepted their help. Its far worse if they encouraged it. And even worse if they insinuated some payback should Trump win.

I feel like if there is evidence of the latter, then even the GOP Congress will have a hard time with it. In other words, if there is evidence that the Trump campaign told the Russians that they would get something in return for their help, then I just see no way Trump can keep his position.

It gets murkier if they knew and/or encouraged it. The right will go, well, yeah, he shouldn't have, and it sucks, but TECHNICALLY its okay. I don't know if the American people would accept it if, for example, it came out that Trump himself knew some or all of the tactics the Russians were engaging to help him win, and said, sure, go right ahead.

His 30 percent base might be okay with that because it helped them get the result they wanted, i.e. not Hillary under any circumstances. Even shady ones. I'm not sure everyone else would be so forgiving.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#14,810
#14,810
lawgator1 said:
I reject your proposed standard of proof. There is no way to go voter-by-voter and read their minds and find out if they voted for Trump and not Clinton because of Russian-sponsored ad # 422.

The real question is whether Trump's campaign knew of and accepted their help. Its far worse if they encouraged it. And even worse if they insinuated some payback should Trump win.

I feel like if there is evidence of the latter, then even the GOP Congress will have a hard time with it. In other words, if there is evidence that the Trump campaign told the Russians that they would get something in return for their help, then I just see no way Trump can keep his position.

It gets murkier if they knew and/or encouraged it. The right will go, well, yeah, he shouldn't have, and it sucks, but TECHNICALLY its okay. I don't know if the American people would accept it if, for example, it came out that Trump himself knew some or all of the tactics the Russians were engaging to help him win, and said, sure, go right ahead.

His 30 percent base might be okay with that because it helped them get the result they wanted, i.e. not Hillary under any circumstances. Even shady ones. I'm not sure everyone else would be so forgiving.
Click to expand...

LG, you are pathetic. But at least it's entertaining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#14,811
#14,811
So it was Russia, then nazi, white supremacist, North Korea, and now back to Russia? Yet in all of this, he's still president. I'm still waiting for you guys to come up with him being an alien. That one may stick.
 
#14,813
#14,813
Bjorn_Yesterday said:
What's pathetic is that at this point in the discussion, you and joevol33 still don't know who Mike Flynn and Paul Manafort are.
Click to expand...

That pales in comparison to how pathetic liberals like you have acted since losing the election. At some point, your party needs to just accept your loss and take your tin foil hats off.
 
#14,824
#14,824
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14,825
#14,825
Franklin Pierce said:
And what was the result of the Russian hackers targeting 21 states in the 2016 election?

Absolutely nothing, but keep trying to to spin the Commie narrative.
Click to expand...

The result was that it changed enough votes for trump to win. Without Russian interference, trump would have lost. That is becoming increasingly more evident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top