Lushen Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Tryhard said: Papadopoulos is actually the more interesting case because so far he's just on the books for false statements, but it is found that he absolutely did intend to get compromising information on Clinton through emails to Russian politicians. I believe that he was the one that set up the meeting that Donald Jr. had that broke a while back. Yes thank you. Paul Manafort is literally nothing and his charges are unrelated to Trump or his campaign. Papadopoulos is the real news. Though it is important to note there's nothing conclusive at the moment. He could be a problem for Trump, however, unlike Manafort. Is anyone else excited that we're going to be able to read/hear the name Papadopoulos over and over again for the next few months? Best name for a conspiracy theory figure ever. Edited October 30, 2017 by Lushen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 2 hours ago, Lushen said: A defense for Trump regarding Russia-Trump? Yes. Am I not allowed to do that? There's, at this time, nothing conclusive involving Trump and Russia. The story about Trump's son was a lot better for Dems than today's news. No...the reason he isn't being called a traitor is because his charges are due to his personal finance. Seriously read the report, there is no good news for democrats regarding Paul Manafort. None. I just explained what Conspiracy against the United States is. It could not be a more separate charge from treason. If anything, the charge should be renamed because it's not at all like it sounds. no, of manafort. i agree, as of yet there is nothing conclusive of russian collusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lushen Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Phoenix Wright said: no, of manafort. Nah, I said it was individual to him. If anything, that means he is more guilty because he doesn't have a shield organization to hide behind. I think he's getting charged with exactly what he should be. Edited October 30, 2017 by Lushen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Wright Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 "and not at all like it sounds." you agree this is confusingly worded yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Holy Elf Posted October 30, 2017 Share Posted October 30, 2017 Trump trying to go "but but Hillary" is pathetic. She's not president. She's not the leader of the Democratic party. She doesn't matter for pretty much anything any more. Even if she were indicted (spoilers: she won't be) it means very little besides having some ramifications for her personally. Even if it turns out both she and Trump are guilty of something, that won't protect Trump. I know Trump ran his entire campaign on painting his opponent as one step removed from Satan and thus convincing his supporters to support him despite his obviously being unfit for the presidency, but continuing to do crosses a line from nasty-yet-effective to just embarrassing, and only seems effective at impressing his most deranged supporters. ... And Lushen I guess. For someone who often claims to not be a Trump supporter you sure do parrot him and his alt-right base often. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lushen Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Phoenix Wright said: "and not at all like it sounds." you agree this is confusingly worded yes Yea. In all fairness, the charge is probably not used very regularly and certainty not in the sense that it would be public news. But they could have came up with a name that doesn't sound like Treason... 1 hour ago, Dark Holy Elf said: ... And Lushen I guess. For someone who often claims to not be a Trump supporter you sure do parrot him and his alt-right base often. First off, a very small fraction of Trump voters are members of the alt-right. Secondly, I believe Trump has done a lot of stupid things and will continue to do so. What I don't like is how the mainstream media and Democrats criticizes him for all the wrong things. For example, the media is heavily focused on Manafort because it's what they were expecting. If they knew what they were doing, they'd be talking a lot more about Papadopolous, and not Manafort. Another example would be people consistently trying to label Trump as a Racist, Sexist, and Homophobic because he called a woman a bimbo and doesn't want Transgenders (who high ranking military personal have complained about) to disturb the US Military. And he's an Islamophobe because he doesn't like the idea of immigration coming from hostile territories. I would be perfectly willing to discuss how this, as a strategy, does nothing considering the ban is temporary but no one talks about how illogical it is - they just want to cater to their readers by convincing them that Trump is an impeachable biggoted asshole. And now we have Democras trying to tell me he's corrupt when they are responsible for the DNC backstabbing Bernie and Clinton's many lies. I am perfectly willing to discuss Trump's many flaws, but I am not going to bandwagon with the MSM to make my discomfort with Trump easier, especially when they praise corrupt, horrible, and disgusting people all the time. Edited October 31, 2017 by Lushen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Well, it's kinda hard to not be called an Islamaphobe when you sign an EO that you specifically refer to as a "Muslim Ban". Doesn't matter if it "makes sense" it's still a ban based on religion (in its intent if not its language) which is both unconstitutional and immoral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lushen Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, The Geek said: Well, it's kinda hard to not be called an Islamaphobe when you sign an EO that you specifically refer to as a "Muslim Ban" I was mocking people who refer to it as a Muslim Ban. Nowhere in the text does it mention a religion. Additionally, I believe there are now 2 countries that are not dominantly Muslim that are covered under the Travel Ban. Finally, it blocks the entire country's people, not Muslims. If someone were to block the US would it be a Christian Ban because that happens to be our dominate religion (~80%)? Finally #2, plenty of Muslim countries are still allowed to travel the US. For the record, it's full title is - Executive Order [13769] Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States Ironically, the "Muslim Ban" actually advocates freedom of religion since it specifically mentions that individuals who do not believe in religious freedom (persecutions) will not be permitted in the country. Edited October 31, 2017 by Lushen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Trump himself called it a Muslim Ban in his tweets. I know the text of the order itself doesn't refer to people of Muslim faith (because, as I said earlier, that's unconstitutional no ifs ands or buts about it) but intent means a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) He's called sexist because he has a long history of assault allegations, his ex-wife testified in court that he raped her (she may have later retracted it, but she also received a large sum of money, so...) and he is recorded on tape of saying several sexist things including the infamous 'grab 'em by the pussy' speech. To call him sexist is neither a stretch nor is it untrue. He's called racist for many reasons including the whole 'very fine people on both sides' tweet. Thirdly every source I have read today talked extensively about Papadopolous too, so I'm not seeing all this focus on Manafort. Edit: You continue to talk as if people here are Democrats who love Hillary and CNN when you're pretty much the sole person in this thread to ever mention Hillary and CNN. Edited October 31, 2017 by Res Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Geek Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Yeah, I'm watching the news right now and they're talking extensively about Papadopolous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Holy Elf Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Lushen said: First off, a very small fraction of Trump voters are members of the alt-right Never said otherwise. However, peddling unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about Clinton and chanting "lock her up!" are the handiwork of the alt-right, which is why I brought it up. Others have addressed the rest of your reply so I won't bother piling on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) also saying "the left" as a conglomerate is a sign of the alt-right EDIT: lushen also doesnt read/watch the news, in fact he's still never told me where he reads his news Edited October 31, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) On 10/30/2017 at 11:30 AM, Thane said: For those of us outside of the States with less knowledge about the finer details surrounding these goings-on, what does this mean and what are some likely consequences of this? MANAFORT ...The FBI is going to take Manafort into an interrogation room. Manafort will have an attorney present. The government will confront him with the evidence they have against him: The Bank Records. The Tax Returns. The Transactional Documents. They will say something to the effect of: "We know what you did. We know where you hid the money. This is a slam-dunk case. We can make these charges go away...if you help us prosecute the bigger crime. We want information. What was the Trump Campaign doing with the Russians? Who were the points-of-contact? Who ordered them to do it? What did the president know and when did he know it? Tell us what you know; we will give you immunity from prosecution in exchange for your testimony." A lawyer will whisper into Manafort's ear: "The government's case against you is very strong. You're going to prison for a long time if you go to trial. You should take that deal." And then it will be up to Manafort whether or not he wants to start talking.PAPADOUPOLIS ...this is the more interesting one... We learned today that Papadoupolis was arrested all the way back in July. The arrest was kept under seal and Kept secret until today, when the records were unsealed, and his guilty plea (to a relatively minor charge, compared to what Manafort and Gates are getting hit with) was revealed to the general public. In the unsealed documents, explaining to the Court why the July arrest had to be kept secret until his guilty plea in October, the FBI states that Papadoupolis was participating in "proactive cooperation." What that very strongly suggests, in the lingo of law enforcement, was that Papadoupolis struck a deal with the FBI immediately after he was arrested (i.e. several months ago), whereby he would plea to one count of lying to the FBI and receive immunity from further charges in exchange for his cooperation. That he agreed to wear a wire. That in the time between his arrest and his guilty plea, he was reaching out to persons under investigation who didn't know he was cooperating with the FBI and recording 1-on-1 conversations. That Mueller allowed the guilty plea to go through and publicized it at this time, because he is satisfied that he has gotten all the information he needs out of Papadoupolis's cooperation. ...and that he's now ready to take the investigation to the next level. Hes putting the people who spoke to Papadoupolis on notice that hes onto them. That they should be afraid of where this investigation is heading. And that if they have information and want to protect themselves, now's the time to come forward to the FBI and start talking. Because more shoes are about to drop. _________ ...today was just the tip of the iceberg... Mueller has not shown all his cards. More is coming. Edited October 31, 2017 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time the Crestfallen Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 22 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: also saying "the left" as a conglomerate is a sign of the alt-right EDIT: lushen also doesnt read/watch the news, in fact he's still never told me where he reads his news Well for what it's worth, I don't think he actually watches Fox News or alt-right media sources. Whether or not people in his family/social circle get their news from those sources and to what degree he has/has not just absorbed it from them is another matter entirely. 19 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said: ...today was just the tip of the iceberg... Mueller has not shown all his cards. More is coming. Yep. I'm pretty sure Flynn will be next, but who knows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thane Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said: ...today was just the tip of the iceberg... American politics sure are...interesting. Thanks for the write-up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slumber Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Thane said: American politics sure are...interesting. Thanks for the write-up! Stupid. Stupid is the correct word here. American politics are very, very, very stupid. Trump is the product of our own undoing. Every day I wake up, wondering "Could today be any dumber than yesterday", and every day that question is answered almost immediately. Edited October 31, 2017 by Slumber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlordsd Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 1 hour ago, Slumber said: Stupid. Stupid is the correct word here. American politics are very, very, very stupid. Trump is the product of our own undoing. Every day I wake up, wondering "Could today be any dumber than yesterday", and every day that question is answered almost immediately. Agreed. Idiotocracy is disturbingly accurate. I mean, look, I'm going to wait until an official verdict is handed out before declaring any one guilty or innocent. That's how rule of law works. But my god, is Trump dumb. I mean, just... dumb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoblongoo Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, dragonlordsd said: Agreed. Idiotocracy is disturbingly accurate. I mean, look, I'm going to wait until an official verdict is handed out before declaring any one guilty or innocent. That's how rule of law works. But my god, is Trump dumb. I mean, just... dumb. Trump is the poster-child for what happens when an empty-suit of a man rises to a station beyond his abilities, because he was born into extreme wealth and privilege and allowed to coast through the highest echelons of High Society while being a total fuck-up. Edited October 31, 2017 by Shoblongoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 this is quite funny to me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlordsd Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 18 hours ago, Lushen said: I was mocking people who refer to it as a Muslim Ban. Nowhere in the text does it mention a religion. Additionally, I believe there are now 2 countries that are not dominantly Muslim that are covered under the Travel Ban. Finally, it blocks the entire country's people, not Muslims. If someone were to block the US would it be a Christian Ban because that happens to be our dominate religion (~80%)? Finally #2, plenty of Muslim countries are still allowed to travel the US. For the record, it's full title is - Executive Order [13769] Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States Ironically, the "Muslim Ban" actually advocates freedom of religion since it specifically mentions that individuals who do not believe in religious freedom (persecutions) will not be permitted in the country. See, this is what I'm talking about. No where in the text does it say "Muslim Ban" He legit could have gotten away with it, except then on twitter, he actually calls it a "Muslim Ban." I mean, SERIOUSLY. How stupid can you possibly be? That idiot's such an embarrassment it's painful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 (edited) Also, he specifically asked Giuliani how to make a Muslim ban but legal. The intent was a Muslim ban and the execution is really idiotic. Theres no way to spin the travel ban to make Trump look passable. The fact that Saudi and Pakistan are not on this list is even more baffling. Edited October 31, 2017 by Lord Raven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonlordsd Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said: Also, he specifically asked Giuliani how to make a Muslim ban but legal. The intent was a Muslim ban and the execution is really idiotic. Theres no way to spin the travel ban to make Trump look passable. The fact that Saudi and Pakistan are not on this list is even more baffling. He has big business ties with Saudia Arabia, it was brought up during the election. Great pictures of him shaking hands with shieks, you can find them pretty easily. Pakistan is weird though, no idea why that wasn't on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Raven Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 I'm also guessing business ties based on stuff I've read before, but that's not something to quote me on. Not that I advocate for such a ban, nor am I even upset that Pakistan's not on the list (though thankfully this won't affect me at all -- apparently Pakistan doesn't do dual citizenships so everyone in my family has no Pakistani citizenship) but you may as well ban the places that are actually prone to terror rather than being kind of a potential threat. He also approved Saudi arms sales like 6-7 months ago so he generally doesn't give a shit about terrorism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slumber Posted October 31, 2017 Share Posted October 31, 2017 Saudi Arabia is pretty ground zero for terrorism in the middle east. But they have money, so they get to slide by. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.