Trump Regime thread.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It's one of those cases that is selected politically. It's a tricky situation and the legal precedent it sets is a catch 22 tbh because it could open the door to discriminate against say Muslims for instance but if it's ruled the other way it opens the door to discriminate against gays or a lot of other different groups. One thing is for certain, this is not about a cake. The fact that Trump's DOJ is weighing in seems to be an opportunistic political power play on his/the GOP's part. Either way it's probably a win in their book honestly. I'm afraid of what happens when this goes to the Supreme Court. Nothing good will come of it.

And you acknowledge that. That is what I am saying. Morons like Blots who are like," Fuck religion, and the man, and the patriarchy, and whoever else does not like it" don't see the long game here. He would has a shit fit trampling a Muslims rights, but fuck Christians. He does not understand the precedent set because right now he is too outraged because he is against christianity.

 

Thanatos recognized it too, the only one who does not get it is him, but dude thinks I am the dense one lol.

Edited October 27, 2017 by Omerta

[seanbrock 1,684]

Yeah, honestly I I can't stand organized religion so I didn't really think in that direction and some of your posts were a little tldr. I even sent blots a PM about debating a cinder block being more productive than arguing with you on this and to just stop trying. I guess just like everyone else though we fall victim to the confirmation bias. I really have to start trying to be less of an arrogant fuck. It's pretty scary how fast we're kind of becoming a totalitarian state though. The people with all the money and power are coming to put the screws to everyone man and if you don't think a gay couple getting a wedding cake or some dumbass bible thumper being forced to make a cake can effect you, you could be very very wrong. That forced arbitration case. All these free trade deals. This is some scary shit man. People need to realize that it's us versus them. We let them divide us by race, sexual preference and really everything else but in reality it's the haves vs. I'm not talking about people with 6 figures in them bank. I'm not even talking about people with 7 figures in their bank account.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

Good because I am trying to get to 7 figures in my 5 year plan breh, fight me.

 

This conversation was civil among all participants until Bloots was triggered and started doing that monopoly on intellectualism thing he does so poorly.

 

I think that is where people get all tripped up about religion. They always seem to equate religion with Christianity. It seems that people are more than ok saying,"Christians need to shut the fuck up and quit pushing their agenda of hate on this country" its cool. Now say," Muslims need to shut the fuck up and quit pushing their agenda of hate on this country" and we are talking hate speech. There is a grotesque double standard here. ALL religions should have the right to practice within their religion so long as it is not hurting anyone.

 

The trickiest part of this for me other than the obvious question of "Whose rights do you trample?" is this. Where do we draw the line here ? I think I side with the baker here because there are other options for a cake, and at the end of the day it is just that, a cake. Now, what if there is a straight paramedic, and he does not like gays ? Should he be able to refuse ? Of course not. So now we have established life saving services you take all comers. Well than what about employment? If you are a church and you are hiring a landscaper should you be able to discriminate on who you hire considering your institution ? I still dont think that is right. The questing gnawing me all day is where do I have to draw the line on this? It is hard to explain but so far, when you are making someone become an integral part of and event\function they are opposed to on religious grounds.

 

I have read several times that the owner of the bakery said he would do anything else they wanted as long as it was not about gay marriage because he finds it objectionable. He also will not do things for Halloween, or anything like Harry Potter. So he would give that gay couple the cutest little puppy cake, or birthday cake or whatever the case may be, he just would not be a part of a gay wedding for his obvious reasons. I think that is being fairly reasonable as an agnostic. Would it be great if religions and homosexuality did not have to be diametrically opposed? Sure, but it isnt so we have these little scenarios we have to deal with. They all need to be handled on a case by case basis because there is no way that there is any broad stroke legislation that is going to fix this problem, of which do you protect the right to marry anyone? Or the freedom of religion? Either one you choose their will be far reaching complications.

 

Lets say you choose to say freedom of religion takes a backseat. So when Muslim women where a hijab, or burka in a place where there is supposed to be no head gear worn, we get to tell them their religion is bullshit and they must do as we have instructed? What about the other religious rituals like the bris ? When we give free reign for the government to dictate religion it only takes a few things before you are crushing billions of peoples rights or at least the rights of those who live here.

 

Say you choose the opposite. Well now you have made the religious people happy and they can continue their practices, but at what cost? Does freedom of religion extend itself to free speech, or is it a standalone right. What I mean is can religious people use derogatory terms towards gay under this as it is a religious thing? Can religious doctors refuse sex changes? If they can, what other services do they get to withhold ?

 

There is no good answer and anybody on here who says there is, is full of shit.

 

I would also like to say big ups for admitting to confirmation bias. You are one of 5 or 6 people on here I have seen admit, maybe they got it wrong. You will never see Blots do that shit about politics because he owns intellectualism on theocracy in the modern democratic republic as well as societal justice in the same arena.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

A grand jury has accepted the first charges filed by Robert Mueller in his Russia investigation -- documents are sealed for now but people could be arrested as early as monday.

Kind of.... a coincidence isn't it? Mueller finally does something worthy of headlines as soon as it's revealed that he played a part in possible collusion? All too convenient. lol.

Regardless, should be interesting to see who goes down first.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Kind of.... a coincidence isn't it? Mueller finally does something worthy of headlines as soon as it's revealed that he played a part in possible collusion? All too convenient. lol.

Yeah it does seem like the trump regime knew this was coming and tried to spread this story to smear mueller.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

A grand jury has accepted the first charges filed by Robert Mueller in his Russia investigation -- documents are sealed for now but people could be arrested as early as monday.

 

Kind of.... a coincidence isn't it? Mueller finally does something worthy of headlines as soon as it's revealed that he played a part in possible collusion? All too convenient. lol.

 

Regardless, should be interesting to see who goes down first.

 

I think it is mutually assured destruction. Trump's cronyism could still put Mueller in a bind, but I think Mueller was keeping this in his back pocket as a way to square the score, or as possible leverage in case something like this happened.

 

The fact that it is coming out now is telling to me.I think Mueller has been gauging the political climate for some time now, and has decided that now is the time to strike. I think that as clever as Trump may be at manipulating certain people, Mueller was a born strategist. I think he sees that Trump has lost both sides of the aisle to his dumbassery, and that there is a clamoring for Pence by the Republican party. I would not be surprised to see impeachment proceedingsl

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Not exactly going to disagree, Blots. But looking at the facts, I think you'd be hard pressed to believe that Mueller has nothing to gain or lose by planting a Russian flag as far away from himself as possible. I don't think it's necessarily smearing him to say that he may be a little too close to this.

I mean, how excited would you be if Jeff Sessions or one of his underlings wanted to directly take on the probe into DNC collusion with Russia? Just doesn't really make sense, does it ?

[blotsfan 2,112]

Not exactly going to disagree, Blots. But looking at the facts, I think you'd be hard pressed to believe that Mueller has nothing to gain or lose by planting a Russian flag as far away from himself as possible. I don't think it's necessarily smearing him to say that he may be a little too close to this.

 

I mean, how excited would you be if Jeff Sessions or one of his underlings wanted to directly take on the probe into DNC collusion with Russia? Just doesn't really make sense, does it ?

But trump has been trying to smear mueller from basically the moment he was hired. He wants to fire him and technically can, but until now congress would just reenstate him. This is an attempt to give the republican members of congress an excuse to not reenstate him.

 

Also the source of this whole conspiracy was a report by steve bannon soooo....that seems sketchy.

Edited October 28, 2017 by blotsfan

[Thanatos 2,847]

Lmao really? It was originally reported by Bannon? Throw the whole damn thing out unless someone else has a viable source.

 

Steve Bannon is nothing but a white supremacist, racist, nationalist- truly is one, unlike Trump who just plays at it to try to get that segment of the vote.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Lmao really? It was originally reported by Bannon? Throw the whole damn thing out unless someone else has a viable source.

 

Steve Bannon is nothing but a white supremacist, racist, nationalist- truly is one, unlike Trump who just plays at it to try to get that segment of the vote.

 

 

Oh since I'm sure you'd like a source for that, here you go.

 

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/25/how-steve-bannon-and-sean-hannity-ginned-up-the-hillary-clinton-uranium-story/

[seanbrock 1,684]

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia was playing both campaigns like a fiddle. Greed and arrogance can be blinding.

 

http://nypost.com/2017/10/25/nyc-elections-board-admits-to-purging-voters-from-rolls/

 

I don't think Russia had much of an effect on the election though at the end of the day. There were people manipulating this election in our own country. I think Russia may well just succeed in exposing the corruption more than ever of our political system. Not sure what the end game is with that but so far it looks like they're doing us a favor tbh.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

 

Oh since I'm sure you'd like a source for that, here you go.

 

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/25/how-steve-bannon-and-sean-hannity-ginned-up-the-hillary-clinton-uranium-story/

 

That article is pure conjecture and opinion from a far-left source. Thanatos, earlier in this thread, already mentioned how HillDog wasn't the sole vote in the Uranium One deal. That's almost literally the only "fact" in that article about that actual deal. Everything else is just shitting on Hannity and Bannon (which is fine by me). But by no means is that proof of anything.

 

There is literally no fact checking or denial that Hillary Clinton and her foundation received tens of millions from the very same company leading up to the vote. AFTER the vote, people connected to Uranium one donated 150 MILLION dollars to the Clinton foundation -- none of which were ever disclosed. That's just a fact, that not even uber liberalism can deny or strike from the records. Those facts weren't contrived by Bannon, Hannity, or anyone else.

 

Also, going back to earlier. I am still not disagreeing with you on Mueller or Trump's dislike of him.. Just looking at it from the other perspective though, if Hillary's campaign and the DNC paid for fake Ruassian "dirt" that led to my investigation, I too, would be pretty annoyed and pissed off.

 

People (on both sides) deserve prison, so in the end, perhaps it's a net positive. Just rumors right now, but it looks like a lot of the focus is on the Podesta's and Paul Manafort.

 

 

[seanbrock 1,684]

It's baffling to me that people can defend this shit. This is the tribalism I was talking about. Trump being a shitty president doesn't have anything to do with this issue. There is an indisputable amount of evidence showing how corrupt the DNC is.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Yeah salon is absolutely a far left source.

 

However, there still really is no evidence about the Uranium One thing being linked to the Clinton Foundation, that's all speculation as well.

 

Since apparently Snopes is too biased based on nothing at all, have a different organization:

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

 

This is another Benghazi, another fake scandal the GOP has manufactured- this entire thing came a book that was written by a member of a far-right think tank, so its automatically suspicious right there because he has all the motive in the world to go after Hillary- that they will waste time and taxpayer dollars investigating, which will probably lead to nothing.

 

The DNC is absolutely corrupt, but this thing is just nonsense, IMO. How convenient that it comes out right as Mueller is getting ready to make some arrests.

 

Should happen tomorrow, let's see who the charges were filed against. My guess is Manafort.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Thanatos

[blotsfan 2,112]

Not surprising given that he's the most obviously guilty of al of them, but Manafort is the first indictment in the Mueller investigation. Gotta assume Flynn is gonna be #2.

[seanbrock 1,684]

 

Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.

On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.

The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.

The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.

The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.

Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the Times wrote.

But there is no evidence that the donations or the speaking fee had any influence on the approvals granted by the NRC or the Committee on Foreign Investments.

Than, just do me a favor and re-read this part of the article and explain to me how the fuck this isn't AT LEAST a little fishy to you. Sounds like the Clinton Foundation got caught trying to hide money through a Canadian charity. Also the timing of Bill's speech in Moscow is almost irrelevant to the whole thing. I mean, we know why Obama is giving all these speeches to the banks AFTER his presidency. We don't know how long that deal was even in the works.

 

If your whole argument is lets wait until the facts have come out then I can live with that. But if your argument is based on some dude who wrote a book, I'd say that's pretty a ridiculous reason to just flat out dismiss claims like this since we KNOW how corrupt the Clinton Foundation is. It's been well established lol.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It's funny then, that an organization that everyone knows is corrupt and has been proven to be so, has an A rating (94 overall) from one of the largest evaluator of charities.

 

The smaller Charity Watch also gives it an A rating.

 

The GOP and Fox News continue to make the claim that only 6% of the CF's donations go towards actual charity work, when the figure is in fact roughly 80%. They know this, they just continue to spread the misinformation, because the more that its out there, the more people will pick up on it and spread it as well.

 

The idea that Hillary was totally, mostly or even just partially responsible for the sale of the uranium in exchange for donations to her charity is just stretching the facts so much as to break them.

I am by no means saying that she is a good person or anything of the sort. But this particular case is nothing more than a witch hunt, IMO. I've never seen any sort of facts or evidence, merely Alex Jones and Glenn Beckish "connecting of the dots" as the two of them do (did) all the time.

Edited October 30, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Nothing in Manaforts 32 page indictment even mentions Trump or his campaign. All 12 charges revolve around his shady business dealings that we were already aware of prior to today.

 

Speculation that perhaps the investigation is just trying to get Manafort to flip on bigger targets. Obviously just rumor at this point but... why waste time on those mind games if they actually have hard evidence on Trump or others tho?

 

Manafort deserves to go down, itll be annoying to see him get off easy if he indeed flips and takes a deal

Edited October 30, 2017 by Olenna4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

Papadopoulos seems to be the guy with more tangible stuff connecting to trump.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

For sure. How high will that go though? Even CNN is citing a former campaign official who says papadopoulos was practically a nobody.

 

They just gonna climb the ladder, show leniency to everyone but whoever is at the top most position they can reach? Sounds dumb to me but then again our justice system isnt always so much about justice as it is making a big splash,

[blotsfan 2,112]

For sure. How high will that go though? Even CNN is citing a former campaign official who says papadopoulos was practically a nobody.

 

He was in meetings with trump and trump knew him by name.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Which means what to you, exactly? That he was getting orders directly from Trump ? I mean... maybe. I wasnt there, so who knows, but I wouldnt jump to that conclusion automatically.

 

Granted state and local elections and campaigns are a bit different, but Ive worked on multiple campaigns for candidates around here since I was ... 16 I think was the first one as a very low level volunteer. I was lucky enough to on different occasions meet the candidates, have a dinner with some of them ( probably 10-15 people total in the room) , Ive also been in a couple very boring closed door meetings. And then I would see those same candidates a few months to a year down the road after the election and the candidate :/ former candidate remembered me and knew me by name.

 

Again. As an entry level volunteer. Just a bit lucky and I like to talk and bring up ideas that I think they appreciate.

 

This could be totally different and ya maybe Trump was directly tied to The guy... but again, I wouldnt just naturally assume that because Trump knew of him and had him in a meeting lol

Edited October 30, 2017 by Olenna4Ever

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Also:

 

Democratic power lobbyist Tony Podesta, founder of the Podesta Group, is stepping down from the firm that bears his name after coming under investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller.

Podesta announced his decision during a firm-wide meeting Monday morning and is alerting clients of his impending departure.

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/tony-podesta-stepping-down-from-lobbying-giant-amid-mueller-probe-244314

[Thanatos 2,847]

Mueller's gonna take em all down.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Which means what to you, exactly? That he was getting orders directly from Trump ? I mean... maybe. I wasnt there, so who knows, but I wouldnt jump to that conclusion automatically.

 

Granted state and local elections and campaigns are a bit different, but Ive worked on multiple campaigns for candidates around here since I was ... 16 I think was the first one as a very low level volunteer. I was lucky enough to on different occasions meet the candidates, have a dinner with some of them ( probably 10-15 people total in the room) , Ive also been in a couple very boring closed door meetings. And then I would see those same candidates a few months to a year down the road after the election and the candidate :/ former candidate remembered me and knew me by name.

 

Again. As an entry level volunteer. Just a bit lucky and I like to talk and bring up ideas that I think they appreciate.

 

This could be totally different and ya maybe Trump was directly tied to The guy... but again, I wouldnt just naturally assume that because Trump knew of him and had him in a meeting lol

 

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/925009188660629505

 

Even if you're gonna be charitable and say this doesn't mean trump had ties to him, you don't get to that spot without having direct ties to people that have direct ties to trump. I don't trust any of these people to maintain solidarity once they realize their ass could be on the line.