So Mueller was not satisfied with the way Barr summarized his report
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
No, I don’t think they are racist, necessarily. But they are ok supporting a racist, soo.....
Ambivalence is a lot different than support.
Mussolini ran the trains on time.
And I think that anyone who voted for Clinton voted for the most vile human being on Earth. So there!!
I agree with you that Hillary was a far better choice and that electing Trump was one of the worst mistakes in American history, but just because they put up the worst candidate ever doesn't give us a pass to put up as horrible of candidate as Hillary was. It wasn't hard at the time to see that she wasn't a great candidate.
I may have liked her specific policies more than who would have replaced her, but there's a lot more to politics than that, to a lesser extent it's kind of like Joe Manchin in West Virginia. He's not perfect, but he's a hell of a lot better than we'd get if he wasn't there. We got complacent from the Obama presidency and it showed in who we nominated.
Last edited:
That may be true, but:
1. It doesn't excuse voting for Trump.
2. It's not the Democrats' job to run a candidate that will be palatable to Republicans.
3. Hillary's flaws need to be a separate conversation; complaining about bad choices (plural) conflates them and reduces Trump's unfitness to normal levels.
I agree with you on all points, but it is the Democrats job to run a candidate who can get high turnout out of the swing voters, she wasn't it. Don't mistake what I'm saying for saying that Trump was the better candidate, that's a laughable thing to suggest and I would much much much rather have her in White House than Trump
But you have no valid reason for thinking that so why would it bother anyone if you think that?
There is a big difference between the Democrats and Republicans on this. Hillary was hand picked by the Democrats. All the superdelegates were for her. The DNC rigged the process in her favor in a number of ways. Trump on the other hand was never the choice of the party veterans. He barged into the field without backing. He was the product of too many candidates that diluted opposition and frankly too much voting. The Democrats deliberately chose a bad candidate. Circumstances gave the GOP Trump.
I didn't think you were saying that. I'm just sick of any of the blame for Trump being pushed off on Hillary. Hillary might have been imperfect, but you don't buy HIV-infested syringes from a junkie because your regular doctor has a cough and you don't want to catch a cold.
Republicans gave us Trump, and then they voted him into office, with a nice assist from so-called "independent whites" and the Electoral College. None of this is the fault of the Democrats.
You are right. But I think Goat's point (and it's not necessarily aimed at you, but it gets tiresome to have to repeat it) is that even that doesn't excuse the Republicans for nominating the Imbecile In Chief, and for a minority of voters putting him in office. It's not the Democrat's fault.
Yeah I've got what you're saying now, and agree with you. You may be able to tell I'm low on sleep right now, lol
It pretty probably doesn’t. The nice thing about this country is everyone can voice their very own opinions. At the end of the day, they mean absolutely nothing. My opinion on this board means nothing, just as yours does. You telling me how awful Trump is is no different than me saying how awful HRC was. It is all meaningless rhetoric. The only difference is you shout it from the rooftops every single day, and I just sit back and watch.
It doesn't have to mean nothing. I come to this forum to learn. Unfortunately, the number of people willing to put in the effort to teach is dropping dramatically.
I have said several times that there are a few people on this board that have opened my mind to some different thoughts. Unfortunately, too many people want to lecture me on why I am a terrible person.
The story is extraordinary from a couple of angles. First, it shows that even though the FBI elected to not give a defensive briefing to Candidate Trump on their concerns about some members of his campaign, they did elect to try to spy, or "spy", on some members of that campaign. Papadopoulos believes that Turk was one of at least two women dangled in front of him hinting they would trade sex for information. Of course, if they went to this extent on Papadopoulos, you know a "high value target" like Carter Page probably had FBI folks crawling up his butt. Second, we learn the operation was run by a counterintelligence agent from the New York field office of the FBI who just happened to have a long history of working with Trump hater, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara. What makes it really interesting is that the FBI prophylactically revealed the story ahead of the upcoming report by DOJ IG Michael Horowitz and the spin they put on it was they did this to protect the Trump campaign.
I read just fine. I was looking for a simple yes or no, which for some reason you don’t want to provide.
Good lord man. I know you don’t want to believe the truth, but the campaign was briefed. You can believe the truth or keep chasing conspiracy theories. I know which way you’ll go.
FBI warned Trump in 2016 Russians would try to infiltrate his campaign
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna830596
You’re looking for an excuse for voting and supporting a racist, white nationalist as our POTUS. “Yeah, I realize that he’s incompetent, racist and ignorant, but he’s not Hillary”.
At some point you become who you stand with.
Anyway you cut it, the Papadopoulos-Azra Turk stuff would be a significant story to a news organization. But if you were invested in the collusion story and anything that made the backstory look untoward would not be helpful. Of all the pretend-unbiased media, two outlets fall squarely into the latter category. CNN and MSNBC have pushed every half-baked story on the collusion stuff for at least two years. And, lo and behold, as of 5:30 yesterday when I last checked, MSNBC had no stories mentioning either Azra Turk or Papadopoulos.
Trump had Helsinki 2.0 yesterday. He told Putin that, despite every piece of evidence to the contrary, he doesn’t think Russia interfered in the 2016 election. Why are you so hell bent of defending this man who doesn’t deserve it?
Lol. I didn’t vote for him and I won’t in the future.
Why can’t you just give me a yes or no? You’re tip toeing right up to the edge, just come out and say it.
Just because Trump, and the White House in general, is a dysfunctional (insert your preferred word here), doesn't mean the rest should get a free pass.
With regards to the Papadopoulos story, CNN was only a little better. Papadopoulos was mentioned in a 48-word story that effectively sanitized the events to sound like a business meeting. Azra Turk is not mentioned at all.
I do not understand this complaint about Azra Turk. I bet half the American jihadists we catch are caught by some agent walking up to them (figuratively online or literally) and feeling out their opinions of planting a bomb.
You want me to call you a racist? I don’t know you. I do know you support the current racist POS POTUS. The country seems to be full of people who “didn’t vote for Trump”. Bunch of people who are ashamed of themselves.
I don't know what the networks mentioned on air, but it is pretty clear that this story didn't rate a mention anywhere near the hysteria that numerous and demonstrably fake stories about Papadopoulos did rate.
If you will notice, the argument is not that the Trump campaign and administration did NOT do the bad things. It is always that the people that caught them doing the bad things are somehow conflicted. Why are you not bothered by the actual bad things that the Trump team did?
I wish Republicans were a quarter as patriotic as they claim to be.
To not mention the story is not mere editorial judgment. When the FBI admits it ran a counterintelligence operation against a member of a political campaign, that is news because that is just not the way our political system is supposed to work. When they made this admission to the New York Times, it is significant. When a network has devoted the level of resources to the collusion story that have CNN and MSNBC, you can't say that you don't see a reason to cover the story. There is exactly one reason. The collusion story is in tatters. Everyday it is looking more and more suspicious and which the major media were knowingly or inadvertently complicit. They want the story to go away because they can see how this ends if the story doesn't die.
The problem is it has long worked that way. For example, the FBI leaked stories that Truman was in organized crime and that Stevenson was gay. Those were quite clearly wrong. But for the thousandth time, the FBI had multiple reasons to be concerned about Russia. If a Israel sends a message to the FBI that a member of a 2020 campaign was tied to ISIS, are you saying the FBI should never investigate?
You can call me a racist if that makes you feel any better. Lord knows being a conservative is reason enough for most people here. Doesn’t change the fact that I didn’t vote for Trump.
I find it hilarious that a simple yes or no question is causing you such angst.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Alec Baldwin fired prop gun that killed woman on film set of Rust- Latest: BradStevens
