Posted by tecwrg on 3/23/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/23/2017 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/23/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/23/2017 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Can I ask a naive question? Are we supposed to hate Russia again?

I mean, some of the liberals sound positively McCarthyistic in their "Red Menace" rhetoric. I honestly see ISIS as a greater threat to the US than Russia. I would rather have the media grill the president (and Congress) about how we're gonna deal with TERRORISM rather than Putin's personal habits.

p.s. Korea is 2nd, China is 3rd on my "threat to US" meter.

If the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win an election, that's a huge problem. Agree?

If Trump said, "I want you to hack Hillary's servers and release her emails so I can win", yes, that's a huge problem.

If Russia said "Hey, Trump, we hacked DNC/Hillary's servers and found some bad **** that she's done." and Trump says, "I'll give you a release plan, so it will coincide with some speeches I have planned", yes, it's a huge problem.

If Russia said "We hacked DNC/Hillary's servers and found some bad **** that she's done. We hate Hillary, so we'll release it so it she won't be President, and it helps that rich ******* on american TV.", yes, it's a problem, but it isn't Trump's fault.

If Russia said "Hey, Trump, we hacked DNC/Hillary's servers and found some bad **** that she's done." and Trump says "GTFO my office, and stop calling my people", and the Russians release it anyway, yes, it's a problem, but isn't Trump's fault.

Remember, all of these start with DNC/Hillary doing some bad ****. It just so happens that the Russians found it, and released it during the election cycle. Everything after that is guesswork.

What? The DNC didn't do anything wrong.

I asked about colluding. Only your first scenario is actual collusion, so I'll take your answer to be yes.

BERNIE BERNIE BERNIE!!!!


NO COLLISION THERE, RIGHT?

Political parties are allowed to control their nominee process. That "collision" is perfectly legal.

Colluding with a foreign government to win an election, is not.

If what the DNC did was "legal", then why did they go through the farce of a Hillary vs Bernie campaign? Why didn't they just announce at the beginning of primary season last year "We're with her" and tell Bernie and all of his supporters to stand down, STFU and support the party?

Does that sound like the party of transparency?

Who ******* cares? She lost. Comparing the DNC supporting Clinton over Sanders to Trump colluding with Russia is asinine.

Posted by moy23 on 3/23/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):
But seriously BL.... If the ends justify the means, as you've argued for riots in major cities using this logic, then who cares how Trump got in office since that was the desired end result of your alleged collusion?

Another failure from you.

I said that, in the case of civil rights riots, blacks deserved equal rights. They deserved them but weren't getting them. If riots were the only way to bring attention to the situation, then the ends justified the means.

In this case, are you arguing that Russia deserves to be able to advance its interests in America?

Well, the health care bill is going to fail because Trump can't cut a deal. Hilarious.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/23/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):
But seriously BL.... If the ends justify the means, as you've argued for riots in major cities using this logic, then who cares how Trump got in office since that was the desired end result of your alleged collusion?

Another failure from you.

I said that, in the case of civil rights riots, blacks deserved equal rights. They deserved them but weren't getting them. If riots were the only way to bring attention to the situation, then the ends justified the means.

In this case, are you arguing that Russia deserves to be able to advance its interests in America?

What if their interests are (hypothetically) global harmony, economic growth, and the elimination of terrorism? Then their interests MIGHT coincide with Trump's, which isn't collusion, but a coincidence.

Now suppose their interests are "Hillary is an untrustworthy scumbag, and we don't want her to be President". Their interests definitely coincide, but it isn't collusion. You're assuming collusion when both sides likely came to the same conclusion independently.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 1:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 3/23/2017 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 1:24:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/23/2017 1:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 12:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/23/2017 12:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 12:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by toddcommish on 3/23/2017 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Can I ask a naive question? Are we supposed to hate Russia again?

I mean, some of the liberals sound positively McCarthyistic in their "Red Menace" rhetoric. I honestly see ISIS as a greater threat to the US than Russia. I would rather have the media grill the president (and Congress) about how we're gonna deal with TERRORISM rather than Putin's personal habits.

p.s. Korea is 2nd, China is 3rd on my "threat to US" meter.

If the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win an election, that's a huge problem. Agree?

If Trump said, "I want you to hack Hillary's servers and release her emails so I can win", yes, that's a huge problem.

If Russia said "Hey, Trump, we hacked DNC/Hillary's servers and found some bad **** that she's done." and Trump says, "I'll give you a release plan, so it will coincide with some speeches I have planned", yes, it's a huge problem.

If Russia said "We hacked DNC/Hillary's servers and found some bad **** that she's done. We hate Hillary, so we'll release it so it she won't be President, and it helps that rich ******* on american TV.", yes, it's a problem, but it isn't Trump's fault.

If Russia said "Hey, Trump, we hacked DNC/Hillary's servers and found some bad **** that she's done." and Trump says "GTFO my office, and stop calling my people", and the Russians release it anyway, yes, it's a problem, but isn't Trump's fault.

Remember, all of these start with DNC/Hillary doing some bad ****. It just so happens that the Russians found it, and released it during the election cycle. Everything after that is guesswork.

What? The DNC didn't do anything wrong.

I asked about colluding. Only your first scenario is actual collusion, so I'll take your answer to be yes.

BERNIE BERNIE BERNIE!!!!


NO COLLISION THERE, RIGHT?

Political parties are allowed to control their nominee process. That "collision" is perfectly legal.

Colluding with a foreign government to win an election, is not.

If what the DNC did was "legal", then why did they go through the farce of a Hillary vs Bernie campaign? Why didn't they just announce at the beginning of primary season last year "We're with her" and tell Bernie and all of his supporters to stand down, STFU and support the party?

Does that sound like the party of transparency?

Who ******* cares? She lost. Comparing the DNC supporting Clinton over Sanders to Trump colluding with Russia is asinine.

Not my point. I'm just questioning your claim that political parties are perfectly within their right to "collude" to determine their own nominee.

So why did they put on this illusion to all their members who voted in the Democratic primaries last summer that they were participating in a fair process? Why didn't they just say "Look, we're putting Hillary up. STFU and deal with it"?

They ARE within their rights to support one candidate over another. They DNC supported Clinton in 2008 too, but when Obama took the lead, they shifted the support. I don't know why they don't do it the way you describe anymore. That's what both parties used to do up until ~1960's.

There is the smell of treason in the air. Impeachment is coming

Posted by toddcommish on 3/23/2017 1:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 1:42:00 PM (view original):

Posted by moy23 on 3/23/2017 1:35:00 PM (view original):
But seriously BL.... If the ends justify the means, as you've argued for riots in major cities using this logic, then who cares how Trump got in office since that was the desired end result of your alleged collusion?

Another failure from you.

I said that, in the case of civil rights riots, blacks deserved equal rights. They deserved them but weren't getting them. If riots were the only way to bring attention to the situation, then the ends justified the means.

In this case, are you arguing that Russia deserves to be able to advance its interests in America?

What if their interests are (hypothetically) global harmony, economic growth, and the elimination of terrorism? Then their interests MIGHT coincide with Trump's, which isn't collusion, but a coincidence.

Now suppose their interests are "Hillary is an untrustworthy scumbag, and we don't want her to be President". Their interests definitely coincide, but it isn't collusion. You're assuming collusion when both sides likely came to the same conclusion independently.

Trump is an untrustworthy scumbag too. Most politicians are.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/23/2017 3:39:00 PM (view original):
Sure. But the FBI is investigating whether or not there was collusion.

Follow-up to this: If I have evidence that, say, your boss is embezzling funds and I go to you and say "Hey, I found this **** out about your boss. If I release it to the press and the board, he'll be fired. Just keep me in mind when you get promoted, and that IT service contract comes up."

Is that collusion?