|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 27, 2020 17:38:07 GMT
Ignorance is in the eye of the beholder. When you accept Trump's word with no proof, then who is the ignorant one?
There you go. He cheated.
Your first link is an opinion piece, which has less value than toilet paper. At least toilet paper has a use. Your second link doesn't show what you think it does. Let's pretend for a moment that you can look at things logically. You're Putin and one of the candidates makes a stupid joke about another one about emails. Putin, who leads a country that is virtually, but not quite an enemy of the U.S. hears about this joke. Do you A) do nothing, or B) hack her emails in order to cause problems in America? If as you unfortunately think, Trump and Putin were conspiring, Putin would not have hacked the emails "On or about the same day." Putin is not an idiot. Far from it. He routinely gets one up on not just America, but pretty much every other country he crosses. Use your head. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 27, 2020 21:21:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 28, 2020 1:00:41 GMT
That might work. However, what about the Trump Tower meeting?
Nice try. But he still cheated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 28, 2020 2:03:42 GMT
That might work. However, what about the Trump Tower meeting?
Nice try. But he still cheated.
Um. TRYING to cheat does not equal cheating. Nothing happened at the Trump Tower. |
|
|
|
Post by Scarbonac on Feb 28, 2020 5:23:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 28, 2020 12:19:22 GMT
Trying to cheat is cheating. You just suck at it when you fail or get caught. Which is hardly an endorsement for Trump. He continuously gets caught in his attempts to cheat or game the system. It doesn't mean he's not cheating or gaming the system. It just means he's been stopped at the time.
So yes. He cheated.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Feb 28, 2020 13:47:32 GMT
Trying to cheat is cheating. You just suck at it when you fail or get caught. Which is hardly an endorsement for Trump. He continuously gets caught in his attempts to cheat or game the system. It doesn't mean he's not cheating or gaming the system. It just means he's been stopped at the time.
So yes. He cheated.
No. Trying to cheat is TRYING to cheat. You aren't cheating unless you ACTUALLY cheat. If you suck at it and get caught, you got caught TRYING to cheat. Well, unless you get caught after successfully cheating, in which case you suck at it and got caught cheating. |
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Feb 28, 2020 15:21:29 GMT
Technically, he didn't try to cheat. Meeting someone, even a foreigner, that has information isn't illegal or cheating. Entering into an illegal deal to get that information is, or failing to properly report the information (for certain classes of information) is. Neither of these things happened. Even saying that a deal might be possible isn't illegal -- you have to actually promise something.
So, the meeting was pretty routinely not a big deal. Someone said they had information on Clinton, the Trump campaign agreed to sit and discuss it, that information didn't exist and instead an attempt to get a favorable deal on sanctions was presented. This was quickly rejected, and everyone went their separate ways. There was a lot less wrong with this than a number of other, contemporary things done by the Clinton campaign that haven't been amplified as a horror story by the media.
I don't see a need to defend Trump, but I do see a need to correct a corrosive narrative based on innuendo and not fact. There's plenty actually wrong with Trump that I don't see the need to invent stories. But, the current strategy of inventing stories and then the rabid response is backfiring as the stories keep turning out to not be true but you keep seeing the rabid response by people refusing to let go of an easy reason to hate. It makes the game apparent. If the Democrats actually focused on policies (which they lack at the moment outside of the Sander's socialist wing) and attacked Trump on his obvious failings (he's a clown) instead of invented, proved incorrect with trivial effort, stories they'd be in much better shape and would likely win. As of now, this current strategy, while playing well to the rabid part of the base, isn't working out. You're at even numbers of participation in the primaries when you should be surging. And, I think you are getting new people in -- they just aren't more than the people you're losing to Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 28, 2020 15:43:40 GMT
And, I think you are getting new people in -- they just aren't more than the people you're losing to Trump. And I don't think it's more than the numbers they'll lose to Trump when the Super Delegates do Bernie dirty, again. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 28, 2020 17:57:21 GMT
An opinion piece to counter hers? Really? |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 28, 2020 20:14:18 GMT
An opinion piece to counter hers? Really? Interesting. You act as though it's wrong to counter opinions with opinions. Regardless, kirinke's opinion pieces are one to two years old and the mine* has a follow-up source that contradict the her's. * And I even went out of my way to ensure the source I linked to was halal politically pure for her sensitive eyes. |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 28, 2020 20:43:31 GMT
An opinion piece to counter hers? Really? Interesting. You act as though it's wrong to counter opinions with opinions. Regardless, kirinke's opinion pieces are one to two years old and the mine* has a follow-up source that contradict the her's. * And I even went out of my way to ensure the source I linked to was halal politically pure for her sensitive eyes. Marc Thiessen (former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush) is purely political. Well played. |
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Feb 28, 2020 22:46:57 GMT
Marc Thiessen (former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush) is purely political. Well played. WaPo is a lefty 'news' site. While it's possible they might post something with a 'right-leaning' bias, in this case the op-ed was less "opinion" and far more "well, this is what Mueller's report said" and why "collusion" is a dumb term for the media to have been tossing around for the last 4 years. I had no idea who Thiessen was. Weird WaPo would post something from someone whose mere presence should cause them to burst into flames... |
|
|
|
Post by Devoid on Feb 29, 2020 0:22:20 GMT
Thiessen and Hugh Hewitt are both right-leaning opinion columnists that post fairly regularly at WaPo. There are opinion columnists that represent Democratic establishment interests (such as Jennifer Rubin) and those that do not (Bernie supporters) as well.
Having viewpoints across the political spectrum is a good thing. It could be considered odd when compared to the tragically growing number of news agencies that aim for a very specific political demographic.
|
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Feb 29, 2020 2:01:59 GMT
I'm actually proud of you. Going for an actual news site instead of a right-wing blog site. You must have burst into flames when you did that. In my defense, I didn't look especially hard for current news on the Trump Tower thing. I'll cop to that. Also, as far as opinions vs opinions goes, that's essentially what we're doing here.
Linking to an opinion piece that bolsters your own argument (sometimes, the piece is better worded than what you can put down) is valid as long as you can fact-check them. I mean, you don't have to agree with the person, who posts the link, but it's valid.
Note: Far Right wing or Far left wing blog sites are not real news sites! I will mock you for it! I will!
In any case. Attempted cheating is still cheating. Just ask all the gamblers that have died because the other player's found out about the cards up their sleeves or all the people whose significant others have tried to cheat on them. Both the gamblers who had the cards up their sleaves and the significant others who tried to cheat their lovers will swear blue they didn't cheat. The other guys? They'll say yeah, they cheated.
The fact that he tried to cheat, should be concerning enough. Never mind that he didn't succeed. He tried to. He thought it was a good idea. Let that sink in. He opened himself up to blackmail and all sorts of skulldugggery with that bone-headed move. He lessened the office of the president when he did that. Just because he fucked it up doesn't mean he's innocent of it. He just didn't succeed at it, so he wasn't charged.
And yes. Conspiracy is the proper term.
|
|
