My favorite part of this community is how everyone can be yelling "f*ck Trump, f*ck Bernie, and f*ck you too" and then one swipe to the right and it's "heh this almond has udders"
@Shmay Fish, previous picture: 4 comments. This one: currently 59. Next picture: 5 comments
@Shmay Fish, yeah well...fvck almonds!
And with that the hope of the democrates winning 2020 is shattered they have no feildable candidates and they have roughly 8% of their voting base that are absolutely mad dictating the parties direction. So you got idiot candidates virtue signaling to this loud minority of madmen alianating the sane people on the left. The end result is trump wins 2020.
@BlazingBowman, especially considering his recent track record of surprisingly making decisions that most people like.
@Marida Cruz, do ya think hes going to go into iran?
@BlazingBowman, it's already been officially confirmed that he won't. There was an article I actually just read a couple hours ago detailing his decision. His reasoning was that he didn't see the loss of an unmanned drone as enough reason to take the lives of potentially hundreds of people, and that the Government of Iran has officially stated that the attack on the drone was unsanctioned and done by a rogue element. The article also mentioned the thing that's caused a lot of people confusion, that being that a lot of news channels started reporting on the incident literally an hour after it had occurred, without actually checking their facts first. That's why you got just as many places saying it didn't happen as places saying it did.
@Marida Cruz, cool
@BlazingBowman, you said it... not me... but... Trump wins in 2020!!!! (Conservative Republican heavy breathing) hell yeah bitches!
@BlazingBowman, Bernie Sanders is a viable candidate, especially considering how well he did in 2016 with a platform that’s only gotten more popular over time.
His platform is popular to the average American and the staunch democrats, but the problem for him is still the same: establishment democrats fickin hate him because they have a vested interest in preserving the “let’s all blame trump for everything” culture and not acknowledging any issues with the Democratic Party like Bernie has.
He’s always the first democrat to be pitted against Biden, and in landline polls he loses, but in every other kind he wins. What’s also interesting is that when he’s pitted against other democrats he struggles, but when pit against trump he usually wins among general population.
@liberachi , Bernie will never be the nominee and an independent has no chance in this country. Also, most people aside from extreme liberals like AOC and hardcore millennials that think everyone should hold hands and sing kumbaya and share their money, hate socialism. I already pay enough taxes for God damn social programs that I have never even used myself and I lived out of a car and ate ramen for a straight 2 years. Why would I want a socialist that thinks that I should pay more so burdens on the community can have free healthcare, food stamps and unemployment?
@Drunk Pantless Uncle, AOC is not an extreme liberal. And I agree, you do pay enough tax. that’s why we should have a 90% tax on income and capital gains over ten million. So does Bernie.
Do some reading before you post.
Also wtf is a hardcore millennial? I was REALLY born between 1980-2000
@liberachi , i think you over estimate how popular bernie is and his stupud platform considering hes moved over officially into social justic territory.
@BlazingBowman, it’s at least 46% of democrats considering that’s what he got in the primary in 2016 and has only grown in popularity since then.
@liberachi , try shrunk hes polling around 30% then theres the pussyhat crowed that blame him for hillaries loss. And the 8% of the dem base that wont vote for him because hes a straight male. The democrates are divided to an absurd degree. They cannot win.
@BlazingBowman, he’s polling around 38 with Biden at around 41.
@liberachi , so yeah the 30s. I will say though that bernies the only one in the democratic party that actrually has a platform besides orange man bad atleast.
@liberachi , nevermind him and yang. Yang gangs gonna give everyone in america 1000 dollars.
@BlazingBowman, because Bernie’s campaign is the only one with the mainstream support to win
@liberachi , no it isnt. It does not got the neo liberals on its side. He does not have the sjws on his side he does not have the pussyhat crowd on his side. He does not have the sane buissness democrates on his side. Hes gonna probably lose to biden and biden bad touch is gonna blow it.
@BlazingBowman, he doesn’t need everyone. He needs ENOUGH.
@liberachi , if he doesnt even have the support of most of his party then how will he win over the people in the middle like me. Personally id have voted yang gang get myself a cool 1000 dollars but trumps wall and the idea that hell curb stomp the big tech monopolies is to tempting to pass up. Yang gang and my sweet sweet 1000 dollars will have to wait a few years. I mean im no communist but a 1000 dollars is a 1000 dollars.
@liberachi , if you actually think DUDE, FREE SHJT, LMAO is a popular platform to most Americans, Jesus man you've really lost it.
@BlazingBowman, that’s a really nihilistic worldview.
@Captain Swordsman, and that ladies and gentlemen is what we call a bad faith Critism. This person is an idiot and it’s totally ok to just plain ignore them.
@liberachi , by "this person", you mean yourself, right?
@liberachi , how?
@BlazingBowman, I swear that the Democratic Party owes the GOP some type of life debt and is purposefully getting Trump re-elected... There is no way they are behaving like they are as any part of sensible strategy.
@Nick Markakis, its probably them listening to the loud minority of people on the left that drown out the voices of reason.
@BlazingBowman, The republicans are most likely going to win in 2020 due to Bernie in both scenarios, partly because of the terrible voting system we have currently. As mentioned Bernie has a fairly large following, but many democrats believe he is too left and reject his ideas. If he wins the primaries then some dems will vote repub. If he loses the primaries he's running as an independent which due to FPTP will result in a vote split of the dems.
@BlazingBowman, while I see your point of view, what about the current situation of impeachment (say if it actually comes to that) what's your take on that scenario
@LilPuppyOfDOOM , it wont a small majority of the house republicans would have to turn traitor. Also they have no grounds for impeachment despite their ranting and raving on the subject. Its been proven that there was no collusion with russia.
@liberachi , no u
@Marida Cruz, idk man, watch his local news station (Fox) they straight up said bomb them over and over except for like 2 people for them. Did you watch the interview he did on making the decision not to bomb? Super unsettling. Also hes cause a lot of deregulation of the environment or at least tried to pass stuff. One really weird one is that you can hunt hybernating bears and shoot wolf pups. Theres tons of bad stuff but its little and hes good at distraction.
@BlazingBowman, actually they do Muller straight up says over and over there are 10 cases were trump potentially obstructed justice and outlines them but it wasnt Muller's job to investigate that so he outlined them and basically said this is what you need to look into. He has absolutely not been clear. It's why a few Republicans actually changed their mine. He straight up asks his lawyer to fire Muller and repeatedly asked him if hed done it because he didn't like what Muller was finding. That's what Trumps lawyer said haha.
@BlazingBowman, the reason there are so many democratic candidate is they can all smell the blood on the water. Trump's approval rating tanked. Currently, he's polling hire for impeachment than he is for approval. That being said, nothing can Jack up a campaign more than having like 10 candidates. Either way, this election is going to be a dumpster fire
@Vaultboy777, hes polling higher than any democratic candidate. Hes at 48 percent. Trump has bo actrual competition, the democrates have no position besides borders are racist, orange man bad, and impeach a democraticly elected president because orange man bad.
@Runnin with scissors, the probe was to look for illegal cooperations with the kremlin. They found nothing. You dont get to use the powers of the state to probe a man indefinitely for no reason that is unconstitutional. Yet you people are so stupid you willingly set a precident for that because a person who is center left politically isnt progressive enough. You have zero evidence of any obstruction of justice. Trump has not acted in ways that are outside his position as president. You are insane.
@BlazingBowman, I saw several official polling sites putting him at 37%, the lowest in US history. And that's how polls work my dude. Currently, there are a bunch of different candidates. Once it's weaned down to one, the number is going to be much higher. It's not really a fair comparison yet. And they have plenty of positions. I could retort and say trump's only positions are brown people bad, wall good, bad men leave me alone. It's easier to belittle other people's views than it is to actually engage in a dialog, as people on this app on both sides of the aisle consistently show. Also the last one is literally the definition of impeachment?
@BlazingBowman, Personally, in pretty hyped for The Triggering 2: Electric Boogaloo
@Vaultboy777, first of all theres no uniting the democrates. All the candidates are virtue signaling to the fringe left. Like 8% of the party which makes the unpalatable to the sane democrates. The pussy hate crowd wont vote for bernie because bernie bros didnt want to vote for hitlery. And they probably dont like the idea of voting for a male especially bad touch biden. And the radical 8% of the party that controle the direction the parties going in straight up wont vote for a straight white male. And because all the lead candidates are virtue signaling to this crowd that normal dems wont like them either.the democrates are divided while most republicans support trump. Unless something unexpected happens the dems cannot and will not reach the people in the center not with how absolutly insane theyre being. Youre stupid if you look at that situation and think to yourself that the republicans are gonna loose.
@BlazingBowman, My understanding was that the investigation was to look into Russian tampering with elections (to which they found evidence of) and that Collusion was just what people called it even though thats not what the investigation was about.
As for Obstruction. There are several instances that suggest it. But the one that strongly suggests he was intending to stop the investigation was Trump ordering then-White House Counsel Don McGahn to tell Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein that "Mueller has to go.".....
@BlazingBowman, ..... "McGahn spoke with the President twice and understood the directive the same way both times, making it unlikely that he misheard or misinterpreted the President’s request. In response to that request, McGahn decided to quit," the report says. "He called his lawyer, drove to the White House, packed up his office, prepared to submit a resignation letter with his chief of staff, (and) told (then-White House Chief of Staff Reince) Preibus that the President had asked him to 'do crazy sh!t,'" the report continues.
This is the part of the Mueller report that makes his intent towards obstruction look as though he is guilty of it. Since the law basically states that a person in management cant order employees to tamper or impede an investigation thus committing obstruction on their behalf. As it makes them guilty of it too.
If anyone but the President had asked their employee to do such a thing. They would be facing obstruction charges.
@BlazingBowman, generally not polite to call people stupid, but I digress. I'm less sure that trump will be able to reach the large independent middle. He has had far too many controversies and they're not over. His abysmal approval rating and high impeachment rating shows that people do not agree with what he is doing. And yes, there are groups of democrats who have the views you share, but they are a vocal minority. It's not like the Republicans don't have their unsavory elements or unpopular stances either. Like I said, election will be a dumpster fire for everyone
@Seohn, no grounds for impeachment. And no ability to impeach. Youve bought hookline and sinker into proaganda. These have been debunked time and time again, and in order to impeach most of the republican party would have to turn traitor. You are catgorically wrong on this instance there will be no impeachment and even if there was i would take this as a unconstitutional power grab and there would be a civil war.
@Vaultboy777, yeah like i said his approval rating isnt abysmal hes doing better than most democrates despite having a 99% unison negative coverage by so called unbiassed media outlets. Trump has been an amazing president accompling much of what obama promised in his first campaign.
@BlazingBowman, Trump may come off as a giant a hole but his policies have generally been very good for the country.
@BlazingBowman, I never mentioned impeachment. Perhaps read my comment before assuming. I was just pointing at an instance where Obstruction looks much more apparent.
As for your Republican turning traitor comment... that says to me that they put party before country which would make them a traitor of the people.
Are you saying Mueller Report itself is propaganda? Because thats what this is from.
Just because you dont like it. The grounds are there. They just dont want to follow through because it wouldn’t remove him from office.
Or do you think impeach also means he is removed like so many others do? I admit I use to think it did until I learned it doesn’t.
@BlazingBowman, again, his approval is the lowest in US history by unbiased sources. I'd rather not get into it about the president. Neither of us will convince the other that their opinion is right.
@Seohn, like you realize firing these people are within his rights and ability as president. The investigations these people were outting a sitting president were not only stupid and baseless, but inconstitutional. You dont initate a probe into a sitting presidents life for years based on a document from a rival political parties. These people not only acted in the intrest of another political party which is unsuited for their position but its normal for a sitting president to replace these people when they change office.
@Vaultboy777, and what are these "unbiased" sources
@Seohn, the Mueller report itself should never of happend. It started because of the steele dociey put foward by the clinton foundation asserting that trump was colluding with russia simply because he happend to hold a rally at the same time a russian buissness man came into that town. It was a partison attack from the beginning. Can you understand now why it was so stupid.
@liberachi , AOC is an extreme liberal. And an extreme idiot. She has no idea what she is talking about because she is ruled by her emotions and what she perceived as injustice. She doesn't actually think through problems.
And 90% tax? You do that and the rich leave for other countries. Congrats, you just made 50 million on real estate. Give us 45 million.
-actual lawmakers running for president discussing their policy positions
@griffinstorme, im sure joe biden really wants to "change whiteness" thats a policy position. And the dncs wanting to " shut white people up" thats totally a policy position to.
@BlazingBowman, actually, yang has over 100 positions. People should really research candidates before assuming.
@ImAWhoreForThor, your also a whore for yang i dont blame you though. Im not a marxist but a thousand dollars is a thousand dollars.
@BlazingBowman, he had better not win he needs to go to jail, he should not be aloud to run
@benderama, curious to if youve ever heard the phrase "innocent until proven guilty" before?
@BlazingBowman, 10 counts of obstruction of justice, 15 counts of rape, not to mention the rest
@benderama, all the counts of rape were dropped. Not one had any kind of tangible evidence. Its alot like kavanough. none of them wanted to persue the charges. None of these charges have been proven and as far as the obstruction charges there just stupid conceptually. So no he is innocent on all counts. So i ask you again do you know what innocent until proven guilty means.
@BlazingBowman, what about the concentration torture camps he has all those children in ?
@benderama, are you serious? Youre trolling me lol. You got me. Master move man lol
@Runnin with scissors, you realize to come to that conclusion mueller had to take the broadest possible interpretation of obstruction right? He literally listed tweets from Trump, all of which fell under free speech. Then his other evidence he purposefully omitted parts of the transcripts to make it sound like something else was said. Like the convo between Trumps and Flynn’s lawyers. I mean even Alan Dershowitz said what mueller did was way out of line and not at all what he was supposed to do.
@BlazingBowman, dude he straight up asked people to stop, stall and prevent the education. That's him trying to obstruct justice theres a lot of support to impeach him but a lot of people want him instead tried in New York which would send him to jail if he doesnt get elected again. Theres 10 cases of potential obstruction that have yet to be investigated. Look it up or read the actual report. I didn't read it all but I read some 20 pages.
@BlazingBowman, does turning traitor mean to you doing what is right for your country and people by removing someone who is detrimental to your country cause if so ya you are right.
@ThatGuyx79, actually he did exactly as he was supposed to from most perspectives. Alan Dershowitz is a scum bag but hes also rather conservative than democratic he calls himself the last resort lawyer for getting off. Muller found parts and have you read even some of the report or are you just listening to others. I beg you read it even if it is a skim it is pretty damn good.
@BlazingBowman, quick outline of the cases: attempting to fire Mueller, directing White House counsel don mcgahn to lie and create false documents about firing mueller, attempting to limit the investigations effect on future elections, and attempting to prevent Manafort from cooperating with the government. All of those are the fvcking definition of obstruction of justice and are all in the report. That's what it brought to light we can prove or disprove that trump personally conspired with Russia we know his son attempted to though. We also know he wouldn't call the FBI if they had (he so stated). We know that Russia believed they would benefit from trump and meddles in our election. Those are all facts get your head outa your keister.
@Runnin with scissors, by turn traitor i meam turn traitor to theor party, their consituents, and the idea of innocent until proven guilty that people like you seem to have forgotten about.
@Runnin with scissors, yeah I actually did. I also read the omitted parts that you clearly didn’t. It is also telling how you attack Alan Dershowitz character rather than countering his points, claiming he is conservative when he is liberal. Based on your response I can tell you probably didn’t actually read anything and just wait for outlets like CNN to tell you what to think. It is also clear you have no interest in actual discussion and are just looking for an echo chamber. I would recommend twitter or r/politics. There you can find people who will agree with everything you claim without a shred of evidence being provided.
@liberachi , do you really think if you tax people who make that much money that highly they will still stick around and pay it? Or will they say " Hey I've got piles of cash, maybe I'll buy a mansion in any country except the one who wants to steal all my money." They leave the states and then what?
@BlazingBowman, But you do initiate an investigation into meddling into the election which was proven true. And what the investigation was initially about. But you can ignore that to paint your own narrative I guess.
@Seohn, how was it proven true?
@BlazingBowman, Its easy enough to find information that talks about who and how they found Russian meddling with the election.
Page 14 and Page 36 talk about some of the thing they did to meddle. I know most people cant be bothered to read a couple hundred pages. (I sure didn’t read it all) But it does provide a table contents at the beginning.
@Seohn, did you just cite me the Mueller report. The same one that cleared trump of russian collusion as evidence of russian collusion?
@BlazingBowman, Mueller's report absolutely did no such thing. You REALLY need to stop watching Fox news as your sole source of information. It is literally propaganda for the president. That's what it was started as and does that well. NK and China have similar news, they're just more open about it being state sponsored. You get your news from a man who is documented as lying more than telling the truth.
The report lays out the evidence for obstruction of justice on a silver platter and says that it *IF it could clear Trump of charges that it would, and that it can't do so. It's not even reading between the lines to gather that DJT is guilty of obstruction of justice. Mueller heeded a freaking memo written by William Barr decades ago saying the DOJ could not indict a sitting POTUS, that job was up to congress. Rather than get into a battle with his boss over it, Mueller just laid it all out as clearly as possible and left it up to congress who is a mess.
That same report does not ...
@BlazingBowman, ... Exhonerate Trump of collusion either. The report states that Russia definitely interfered in our 2016 election, that Russia wanted Trump as POTUS and that without looking into the trail of money, Mueller couldn't recommend going after Trump on collusion. This is DJT we're talking about though and not following the money with him is like not following the trail of bodies from Al Capone.
Again Mueller chose to not get in a fight over what he was looking into as he feared the investigation might be stopped by the AG on the president's behalf.
The Mueller report did not clear Trump of anything. Barr's, Trump's and Hannity's misleading and false statements are trying to claim such but they are lies. "Total exhoneration" is patently false on purpose in order to mislead and confuse dimwits.
BTW Are you drunk or do you just have a Lot of trouble spelling and making clear reasoning statements?
@mas2de, it absoultey does i watched him get on stage and say he found no evidence of collusion with russia. You conspiracy theorist. And whats youre evidence for collusion russian bots pushing propaganda? Guess what dude they do that for litterally every side. If thats what you count for election meddling and collusion the mexicans litterally sent people here to vote but youre right john podesta falling for a fishing hack, and trump firing people he had every right and ability to fire is collusion.
Ps. I dont watch fox news but maybe you need to try an alternative news source than vice or cnn.
@mas2de, no meuller didnt clear trump of anything but he couldnt proove trump did anything either. Have you forgotten what the presumption of innocence is dude! Innocent until proven guilty ring a bell you dont get to go in there look around until you find something. How the hell is he supposed to prove a negative like that youre bias is blinding you. prooving trump innocent wasnt his job he was there to see if there was any evidence to prosecute there was none.
@BlazingBowman, You asked how it was proven true. The report is suppose to be the truth. Unless of course you are painting your own narrative by picking and choosing what to believe from the report. I mean you have used the report to back your no collusion stance. Even though the report wasn’t about collusion.
No it isnt proof of “collusion” I was talking about. It does however have proof of “meddling”. There is a difference if you could be bothered stop trying to paint a personal narrative and understand what that difference is between someone meddling with an election and someone colluding to do so.
And I wont explain the difference because you have access to the internet look up the definitions.
@BlazingBowman, Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean one isn’t guilty. Just means its not been proven yet. In order to prove that guilt. They do investigations. The evidence they have at the moment it pretty damning though. Unless you’re calling the person claiming Trump wanted him to fire Mueller over the investigation a liar. But that would then being calling him guilty of lying without applying the same innocent until proven guilty standard. Although Trumps open attacks of the investigation sort of lend itself to making Trump look guilty and that also looks more like that guy was telling the truth.
Trumps own actions make him look very suspicious of trying to stop or stall the investigation. Plenty of tweets and video of him using his own words that make it appear so. But I’m not congress. So I cant pass that judgement. What I can say is that. Were it you or I or some other person that did what Trump did. That judgement from an actual judge would be guilty.
@BlazingBowman, and theres no way you can convince me otherwise that if it were anyone else that did those thing. Charges wouldn’t have been filed. The law locks people up with far less evidence. And if you think they dont. Your naïve.
Mueller job was to investigate and write a report. Not to pass judgment.
@Seohn, im confused at why you think trump gets special treatment. He litterally gets 90% negative media coverage and he is roundly hated by a rabid orange man bad base because of this. Trump had his reasons for firing james khomey ( or however you spell it) james khomey was an extreme partisan he refused to say trump wasnt under investigation when he wasnt at the time. James was acting in an unfit way in order to undermine the president for partisan reasons thats justification enough for the firing. With the establishment united against him why would you think they wouldnt take him down if he did something that was actrually criminal? The reason is because they cant proove obstruction of justice. In order to prosexute for obstruction of justice you have to proove they intended to obstruct justice and as far as i can tell youre going to need alot more than some guy saying trump said something without a recording and at what i can only describe as convenience of circumstance.
@Seohn, also dude you realize i can see that youve downvoted me. Not cool to downvote someone youre debating its just the courtesy we have here.
@BlazingBowman, I might’ve hit the download button when I was trying to scroll down the screen. I reread the one that I downloaded on and have no idea why I would’ve downvoted on that.
The reason Trump is getting special treatment is because he’s the president. He’s not getting special treatment because he’s Trump. Its just because he’s the president. (His party first and loyalist followers are the only reason impeachment hasn’t been brought to the table yet.) Which is why it’s brought about the debate about whether or not the president should be held accountable to the law by the same standards as everyone else.
Not being able to indict a sitting president has been brought up many times. Formal federal prosecutors wrote that the conduct of President Trump would it in the case of any other person not covered The office of legal Council policy against injecting a sitting president, result in multiple charges of obstruction of justice.
@BlazingBowman, The “lot more than a recording” is backed by his continued statements he himself has made every chance he gets about the investigation. His actions and words lends itself to being used as proof toward intent. And my guess is they not having a recording is the only reason why so many more Republicans have held out against impeachment. Its crossed my mind many times that the only thing not pushing this issue further is lack of absolute proof like a recording. But for anyone else not president they would have all the proof of intent now to back the likelihood of truthfulness that he ordered someone to fire mueller and they refused.
I’m surprise you’ve not heard them say that a sitting president can’t be indicted and that’s a big reason as to why more hasn’t been done. Any nonconservative pushing agenda news source would’ve have said it at least once I would think. Plenty of comedians have even mentioned it.
@Seohn, so basically no evidence then. Everything you have said every bit of evidence you have provided has hinged on the idea that trump is working with a foriegn state. The Mueller probe has proved he has not. If he as not conspired with a foriegn state then there is no reason for him to block investigations purposfully. As those investigations would only proove him innocent and they indeed have. This is conspiracy theory level of thought. Oh he acts guilty is not enough of a reason to impeach him. You need actrual evidence something tangible. Someguys word and him acting fishy in your oppinion is not enough im sorry.
@BlazingBowman, The Mueller probe has proven that Russia did in fact interfere in the election. Yet you keep ignoring that. It also found that Trump campaign associates did meet with Russians to try to gain information. Though Trump may have very well had no knowledge of that.
Its like your so set on “all hail defend Trump”. You ignore the things and wrong doings they found without doubt during the investigation. Stop fixating on Trump and look at what they did find.
You are correct if Trump did nothing wrong he has no reason to slow it down. So why did he continuously rant and rave about it? If he had done nothing and let it be. We would not be talking about this now. But because Trump pulled himself further into it. He began digging his own grave and made himself look like he committed obstruction.
Are you familiar with the expression, shooting yourself in the foot?
Trumps actions are what make it appear as though he was trying to slow the investigation.
@BlazingBowman, Pretend for a moment we aren’t talking about Trump.
Someone did something wrong. Their friend isn’t happy about it. This friend starts going on long tangent rants about it and tried to get someone thats investigating the incident fired.
Would that be obstruction? Even though the friend didn’t commit the crime that started the investigation.
By legal definitions. The friend is obstructing and would be charged with obstruction of justice.
Now this is similar to how it looks to many legal experts when we talk about Trump and what he did.
You don’t have to like it and can continue to argue all you want. But it doesn’t make it any less true that lots of people see it this way.
@BlazingBowman, In my eyes if they can prove the guy lied about being told by Trump to fire Meuller. Thats one less obstruction evidence.
But even without a recording. Theres enough evidence of intent based on Trumps actions to support that the guy wasn’t lying. Plus theres plenty of proof Trump is a compulsive lair. So his word holds little to support it as being reliable.
And I know no matter what I say I cant convince you to look at it as these other people do. So you will never fully understand where I and many others are coming from.
I understand that you want absolute proof. But thats not how it works in all legal situations.
I personally couldnt serve on a Jury and convict a man without some audio or video proof he did it. Because there would always be doubt I put an innocent man away.
But there isnt always absolute proof. Sometimes theres just enough proof through other pieces of information to support a claim for it to be upheld as true...
@BlazingBowman, ..... In Trumps case he has said with his own words via verbal speech and twitter. Plenty of things to both support his untruthfulness over petty things. And he continuously rants about the Mueller investigation. He himself goes on tangents about it during events that are completely unrelated to it. So that lends credit toward possible intent of obstruction.
Multiple people have claimed he wanted to fire Mueller. And at least one of those persons claims he told them to fire him because of the investigation.
Point is. Even without absolute proof, such as a recording. It still strongly looks like he tried to slow the investigation. Doesn’t matter if you like it or not. Doesnt matter if I do either.
But what is absolutely true is that, were it any other civilian. Anyone but the president. What they have now would’ve been enough proof to bring charges.
And there is no way you can convince me otherwise. Im not that naive or oblivious to the workings of the world.
@BlazingBowman, They put people away with plea deals all the time with little to no actually proof of guilt.
Theres far more proof of Trumps intent (through audio recordings of Trump himself) that lend itself as proof. Than many folks had against them when taking a plea bargain.
Thats why many legal experts have made the comment that Trump would have had charges brought against him were he not president.
Just because something is a conspiracy at the moment doesn’t mean it isn’t true. (And this is coming from a guy who dislikes the world trade center conspiracys, I think they are full of flaws and holes that are easily disproven by basic physics)
Theres more evidence to support Trump intended to slow the investigation than there is evidence that explosives were placed in the world trade center.
But at this point we are going in circles. I cant explain it any clearer than I have. And collusion keeps being brought up even though it shouldnt be because thats not what this is about.
@Seohn, no dude it does not i dont understand why you keep saying it does. The meuller probe did not find any evidence that trump and his campaign colluded with russia. Even left wing biased sources have admitted that you are catigorically wrong in that premise. And why wouldnt he be afraid of it to this day democrares are throwing any mud at the wall and hoping it sticks. Several people have already accused him or fvcking rape without any kind of proof or evidence. And they had key people in the fvi ( james fvcking khomey) working for them why wouldnt trump think they would falsify evidence. On top of it being complete bullsh!t and being prooven false people like you still think he did it despite having prooved no evidence of collusion. Mueller HIMSELF said so under oath. Jesus christ.
@Seohn, also can you please try to keep youre rants condensed its really fvcking annoying trying to debunk 5 comment threads at a time.
@Seohn, really dude he has to proove he didnt say something. Do you even realize youre putting the burden of proof on the accused. Youre showing youre bias dude.
@BlazingBowman, Stop bringing up collusion. There was no collusion. The investigation was not about collusion. And people who talk about collusion and focus on that after being told the investigation wasn’t about that are willfully ignoring the things they did find.
Ive said multiple times the investigation wasn’t about collusion. Ive never said in this discussion they colluded. You keep putting those words in my mouth so you have something more to defend your position with.
You realize that a person can try to gain information from a source without “colluding” with them. One example is Trump Jr straight up admitted to meeting with people from Russia to get dirt on Hillary.
Its not colluding but its still required by the FBI that they be informed of it.
@BlazingBowman, Im not placing burden of proof on the accused. Im telling you that if it were anybody else they would have enough proof. Im not biased in this situation I’m just telling you how it is. Ive even said I wouldn’t be able to put a guy away without absolute proof if I were on a Jury.
Yeah theres a of a lot of proof to make it look like Trump is guilty. His own actions and words make it appear like he’s guilty. I dont disagree that there is doubt by some. Including myself.
But you are claiming the guy lied that Trump told him to fire Mueller. Even though there are multiple accounts of Trump saying he wanted to fire Mueller.
If I say I want someone to rob a bank. And then later someone robs that bank. It makes me look damn guilty.
How do you not see that? You don’t have to understand it all. As I said, no matter what I say you dont understand this point of view. Fixated on collusion blocks ones ability to see the other situations.
@Seohn, i like how you said youre not talking about colluding with russia but in the same comment you say trump jr colluded with russia.
@Seohn, im saying the guy didnt provide any evidence beside his word. And ive seen alot of people accuse him of sh!t without any evidence simply because orange man bad. I require more than that mans word to believe he colluded with a foriegn state and that he tried to cover it up.
@Seohn, look lets me try this from another angle. You said you dont believe he colluded with russia right? So what reason would he have to obstruct the investigation if he did not collude with the foreign state?
@Seohn, well besides him thinking the investigation was going to falsify the charges against him.
@BlazingBowman, Kid 1 Talking to Kid 2: I want someone to beat up Timmy.
Teacher overhears this conversation.
Later that day someone beat up Timmy. So naturally the reaction of the teacher is to believe that Kid 1 had something to do with it.
Now even though kid one only spoke the words and there isn’t proof he did it. There’s already suspicion that he did. So even without absolute proof. He may get in trouble for being involved.
This is exactly an example of why it appears Trump attempted obstruction of justice. He ran his mouth and said things he shouldn’t have which makes him look guilty. Another guy claims he was told by Trump to fire Mueller. Now it’s a he said she said kind of moment.
Who to believe? There is proof that Trump openly said he wanted to fire Mueller. The only absolute proof thats not been seen is that he ordered that man to fire Mueller.
So who is the burden of proof lie on? Because oneway or another. You are accusing one of lying.....
@BlazingBowman, .... and that’s where the paradox comes in.
How can the burden of proof not lie on the accused if someone is accusing one of two people of lying. At that point you have to take in other pieces of information and in this case we know Trump wanted to fire Mueller. So that lends itself to him being the liar.
It’s a difficult situation. But it’s not the only example of Trump trying to obstruct justice. There were 10 examples found by Mueller report. Which means at that point it makes him look really guilty. What does it mean that he is? No. It just means that he looks really guilty short of actually being caught with the gun.
I’m just pointing out the situation. I’m not passing judgment. It looks suspicious to me. But that doesn’t mean he did it.
@Seohn, hold on in this example wouldnt timmy be collusion with russia which we both agreed didnt happen. So wouldnt it be more like
Kid 1 talking to kid 2(allegedly): i want someone to beat up timmy.
Timmy doesnt get beat up.
Kid 1: doesnt want kid two to talk tell about beating timmy up even though timmy wasnt beaten up and tells kid 2 to be quite?
@BlazingBowman, there does not need to be a crime proven committed for someone to be charged with obstruction of justice. And I think that’s what your whole point is based on. And it’s wrong. Straight up wrong look up the legal definition.
Obstruction of justice is an entirely separate crime.
Do not say the word collusion again or you have lost the argument because I’ve already said collusion didn’t happen.
There was no allegedly for Timmy. People have heard Trump say he wanted to fire Mueller. Just because you didn’t hear it doesn’t make it not true.
@Seohn, but why would kid one try to cover up beating up timmy if timmy was fine. Thats not even considering if kid 2 lied about kid 1 saying he wanted to beat up timmy.
@BlazingBowman, at this point the only thing I can conclude is that you didn’t fully read what I said or you completely misinterpreted it.
Why would kid one cover up beating up Timmy if Timmy was fine? Well if you had read what I said throughly you would have noticed he did get beat up.
Perhaps instead of focusing on trying to win the argument or being right. Focus more on trying to observe, comprehend and understand another person point of view.
@Seohn, timmy is the metophor for russian collusion we agreed that trump did not collude with russia therefore timmy is fine.
@BlazingBowman, I just want you to know. That I do understand where you are coming from.
I get your point of view. That there needs to be more proof. I don’t disagree with that. Its understandable to want more proof.
But I also understand why other people believe there is already enough proof to show intent of obstruction and/or that he tried to have him fired.
@BlazingBowman, No Timmy is not a metaphor for collusion. I never claimed collusion, you did. So you misinterpreted what I said.
Timmy was a metaphor for Mueller. Kid one was a metaphor for Trump making comments about firing Mueller.
The Teacher overhearing the comment by kid one of wanting Timmy beat up. Are the people around Trump who heard him say he wanted to fire Mueller.
Its not a complex analogy. Its a simple and to the point statement. Changing it in any way can change the end meaning. I didn’t say in any other way than a basic clear couple of sentences. If you misinterpreted it. Thats on you. If you change any of the wording during your reading. Then thats also on you for doing that and leading to a miss-interpretation.
@BlazingBowman, Maybe you lack the ability understand people who have different viewpoints than you. Because you dont put enough effort into putting yourself in their shoes as an attempt to understand there view. Maybe you willfully or subconsciously ignore or alter the words you read or hear.
I happens more than people realize. And is usually done to either paint a personal narrative. Or support ones own views they’ve convinced themselves are true.
That or you are trolling. I think you are trolling because as simple as my Timmy analogy was. I find it hard to believe you are that out of touch as to misinterpret it that phenomenally bad.
@BlazingBowman, “People are their own agents of deceit it’s easier for humans to live in a world of lies. For them to know truth they must openly pursue it.” Immanuel Kant
I openly pursue knowledge. I dont dismiss anything simply because I disagree with it. Which is why I have several times and openly admitted Trump could be telling the truth and isn’t lying about telling that guy to fire Mueller.
You’ve done nothing of the sort. Not even once have you admitted the possibility Trump is lying and the guy is telling the Truth. You just keep talking about Collusions. Even though Ive already said there wasn’t. And even said bringing it up again means you lose the debate since its already been a settled topic and no longer plays relevance.
Its like you lack the ability to process the possibility Trump is a lair and that guy was telling the truth. Or as I said are trolling.....
@BlazingBowman, ..... Only way to know for sure is an investigation.
Just like how there was an investigation to see if Russia was meddling. To which the Mueller report shows and found proof as to being true.
Innocent until proven guilty. Does not mean something shouldn’t be investigated. How does one find proof of innocence or guilt. If there is no investigation.
Its fine to side on innocence when looking at it objectively. But there wont always be audio recordings or video of every crime. And in the law they work with the evidence they have. Even through other means such as a persons actions. If there is enough to show a strong possibility of guilt. Then the likelihood of being charged with guilt is more likely.
@BlazingBowman, but if you want to bring conspiracy into it. Here’s a good one.
Perhaps the people who knew about the Russian meddling. Also knew Trump has a short fuse and doesn’t know how to keep his mouth shut. Perhaps by branding it as collusion (even though it was just an investigation into Russian meddling in the election) they knew Trump would jump on the bandwagon and do stupid things that would make himself look guilty of a crime or hoped he would interfere in some way. Perhaps they hoped for this very thing when he involved himself.
Everyone should know by a certain age that a person who doesn’t involve themselves in a situation is less likely to make a mistake that would make them look guilty of being involved. (We’ve all heard the phrase stay out of it if you dont want trouble.)
But Trump like an idiot played right into their hands and looks guilty of obstruction just like they wanted. Now thats a conspiracy I can see happening. Its more strategic.
@BlazingBowman, Also to point out a comment I missed.
I never said Trump Jr “colluded” with Russia. You didnt read all of what I said or ignored parts again.
In fact the sentence you were talking about. I was literally using as an example of how a person can try to gain information by meeting with someone but not be colluding.
Trump Jr may have just been meeting to get info as he claims. Probably wasn’t working together with Russia to be deceitful as a team effort toward similar goals. Perhaps they really didn’t have a secret agreement. (Part of the definition of collusion) And it was just a meeting to try to gain info on Hillary. Aka just a meeting, not a collusion.
So again, I said no such thing.
@Seohn, to be fair its a pretty sh!te analogy also dude 6 replies come on me and you both know what happens when we have that many comments on a debate on this app. I reply to youre 6 replies with 6 replies of my own then you reply with 8 and i reply with 9 and pretty soon no one know whos repling to what. Lets keep it down to one or two replies k? For the sake of both our sanity.
@Seohn, wanting to fire meuller isnt obstruction of justice though not in it of itself. The reason for wanting to fire Mueller is the key. Im not gonna reply to everything we can discuss it point by point if you want to for reasons specified in my second latest reply.
@BlazingBowman, No analogy will ever be perfect for everyone. But it was the most simplistic analogy that came to mind of how many people see it. It was crafted to have very little metaphor in it for easy interpretation.
And that’s the thing. A lot of people believe that Trumps reason for wanting to fire Mueller was because he wanted to stop the investigation or slow it. A lot of people believed it when that guy claimed Trump told him to fire Mueller. And even the guy who made the claim Trump told him to Mueller, nearly resigned because he saw what Trump said in that way
You are correct. Trump wanting to fire Mueller is not obstruction of justice in itself and the reason for wanting to fire him is the key.
However, It’s other instances that are shown in the report that lend weight toward more proof that his reasons for wanting to fire Mueller was to stop it.
That was my primary point I was trying to make and explain why many people think Trump committed obstruction of justice.
@Seohn, question how would an investigation help look into trumps thoughts. Likely it would just be another waist of taxpayer money unless they happen to find a string of i dont know maybe incriminating texts or something that trump didnt delete. It just seems to me that the varrier for entry to prosecute someone for something like that is unrealisticly high.
@BlazingBowman, I just want you to know that if you think I’ve insulted you in anyway I apologize.
I really do enjoy discussing stuff like this. Or other things. Especially computers.
I feel like it gives me a chance to learn how other people think and interpret things. And I enjoy it because it makes me feel like I’m learning more about the world around me and the people around me.
But I do sometimes have a difficult time phrasing things in a manner that you won’t misunderstand. As I’ve said everyone interprets things differently. Most of the time I do a decent job at explaining a point of view. However I haven’t quite narrowed down how you interpret things. I really am trying to explain what I mean for you as best I can. So I can see how I might come off as frustrated after a while of feeling like I am going in circles. And I apologize for that....
@Seohn, perfectly kool dude weve all been there and me and you have debated countless times, and weve both been in the 200 comments repling to the 200 comments which just normally turns into an incoherent shouting match and im so done with doing that anymore. You were very clear with what you meant even if youre analogy wasnt the best in my oppinion.
@BlazingBowman, ... But I do get your point of view on this. I want you to know that. I agree it would be really nice if we dealt in absolute proof such as video or audio recordings.
And I fully agree that we should look at people as innocent until proven guilty. Its not right to assume guilt. That’s why I always try to phrase things when I’m discussing something like this as “perhaps”, “maybe”, “‘maybe if there was evidence of this or that”.
I don’t like to deal in absolutes. So much so one of the things my ex hates that I do and use to complain about is how often I use the word “maybe”. Lol. Because in my mind few things are absolute. Anything can change at any moment.
Again I apologize if you think of offended you in anyway. I do see your point of view. I just wish I could figure out a better way to explain how I see the way other people are interpreting whats going on and explain why they believe Trump committed Obstruction.
@Seohn, hey it was a good debate. Mayhe well talk about it again. But its gotten to the point where its like a 45 second scroll down to get to the end so maybe we should end it here.
@BlazingBowman, Truth is that even to me it looks specially like Trump committed obstruction of justice. Based on the info I have.
However also based on that same info. If you were to ask me if I could convict him of obstruction. I would tell you because of my own moral system and doubt on my conscience of possibly putting an innocent person in jail. There’s always that doubt that it’s just a misunderstanding or someone is lying. Without audio or video proof I could not convict.
I’ve said this about many crimes or supposed crimes in the news. Ive talked about with the past.
However when its all said and done. I’m not the one that makes that decision. But what I do know, and part of what I was trying to explain, is that there are judges and juries that have convicted with far less than what they have on Trump.
That doesn’t necessarily make it right. But it does happen.
@BlazingBowman, All is good. Bring up computers or tech sometime. Those are by far my favorite things to discuss. Sadly there aren’t many memes about it that pop up.
@Marida Cruz, I come from the future, Trump yeeted some iranian stooge and turned him into ground beef.
be careful! they’ll pander for your vote then throw you under the bus once they have power!
Fivethreeeight and gallup. Gallup has routinely been rated as the most accurate and least biased polling organization. I checked rasmussen for grins, who has been voted one of the least accurate, with significant bias towards republicans. But this right here is one of the reasons I don't like trump. He normalized this plague of unbelief. If you don't agree with it, it's fake news and wrong. If someone disagrees with you, they're attacking you and they're wrong. He encourages a break down in civil discourse and promotes strife in the country he's supposed to be uniting
Political discussion never funny pics
Every time opens his mouth his poll numbers go down cause he always sides with the wealthy elite. As well as the fact that he wants to go back to before the days of 45th. We don't want that we want it to be better than what we had before, and you don't seem to understand or care about that.
Not just you, us.
I'm in the Yang Gang and the memes are amazing in his support groups. Hate on me all you want, I don't care. Yang 2020!
Me should be *America*