Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

soon you'll sound like Hannity (he likes to rant about TDS & what not)

I am talking about the LAW, and if the law does not help me, tough crap for me.
You are already Hannity, crying from his hill about sheep.
Grow up boy, or actually understand WTF you are opining about. you are intelligent, you can think for yourself, but in this case, you are just a drone and representing the "TDS" that idiots like to push.

you know what's worse a representation of the left that still hasn't learnt its lesson - that'd be you - but you know what let the american left keep it up & see if that works out any better for them in 2020 than it did in 2016

I am the left that still has a head. The lesson you want to teach is hate, and I'm not willing to buy based on your BS.
You want me to hate, and say the left can only win on hate because that is what the right uses, and the right wins either way.

[Gatefan1976]

ykw I wouldn't even care that much about american politics if not for the fact that their policies can & do affect the rest of the world
environmental policy for starters

Then argue environmental policy.
I am in the same spot as you, I don't give two hard craps about American politics -unless- it hurts the rest of us. I could rant about china, but no one would care, and no one from china would give a damn.
I investigate politics because it will affect my CHILDREN, and I care very deeply about them.

[SoulReaver]

I am talking about the LAW, and if the law does not help me, tough crap for me.
You are already Hannity, crying from his hill about sheep.
Grow up boy, or actually understand WTF you are opining about. you are intelligent, you can think for yourself, but in this case, you are just a drone and representing the "TDS" that idiots like to push.

I am the left that still has a head.

The lesson you want to teach is hate, and I'm not willing to buy based on your BS.
You want me to hate, and say the left can only win on hate because that is what the right uses, and the right wins either way.

and I'm trying to get it out of your
but you know what Jesus since apparently you reason in extremes ("hate" - which it ain't but w/e) and insist on plodding on with your PCBS here's what: don't hear it from me hear it from them instead:

https://news.yahoo.com/eric-holders-...192841062.html

looks like someone's getting it at last


nb just a reminder where this "debate" began I suggested Don's still guilty of collusion & apparently that set you off Hannity style

[SoulReaver]

I could rant about china, but no one would care, and no one from china would give a damn.

many people are probably concerned about China's policies but short of an uprising (possible?) it's doubtful a short term solution can be found

I investigate politics because it will affect my CHILDREN, and I care very deeply about them.

that is good

[Chaka-Z0]

I compared him to Clinton, either of them, they are not "regular people", so I compared apples to apples

Even prior to his ascension to godlyhood, Trump wasn't cut from the same cord, he was a businessman whereas Clinton is a career politician. The Snake never was in a real position of authority, excluding her dead grip on Bill's balls.

I know exactly how well connected these people are, because it happens at all levels of organizations. It's telling yes, but the bar here is legality. Did trump knowingly and wilfully collude with Russia?
No.

His freaking son met with this shady Russian lawyer to talk exclusively about getting dirt on a political opponent. In my book this alone qualifies as collusion or tentative of collusion.

Did he benefit by their interference and accept it (and indeed even ASK for it)?
Yes.
Is that a crime?
No.

The legality aspect is irrelevant. It qualifies as collusion. Heck, say I get in touch with Annoyed and we both conspire to bash you in a Gateworld post, that would qualify as collusion. You're thinking treason.

Collusion: secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others.

I'm sorry, but the law is separate to politics by design, much like religion.

Nonsense. Tell me again that the law is separate to politics by design when the Supreme Gods of the Supreme Courts are nominated by politicians. As for religion, technically, sure, but fact is christiannity has been weaponized by politicians in the US as long as I can remember to get the evangelists armada on their side. So both aren't separate in the case of the US.

This is what the left and right need to understand, neither are going to "win" a partisan fight, and continuing to push it will only further the goals of people who want to see democracy (NOT DEMOCRATS) fail.
I don't like trump, I don't like his policies, his attitude, or basically anything about him, but I MUST respect the SYSTEM, because without the system, you don't have a government.

The system is flawed and horribly distorted in the US, that is a nobrainer to me. You win with money. Lobbies hold your party hostage. The voter's will is irrelevant. How can you respect that system?

No, it's beyond that. What I am saying is, the system either works, or it does not. If democracy fails, what do you replace it with? Communism? Totalitarianism?

The system can work, but not in the shape it is right now in the US. When the minority elects their representative, it isn't right.

Trump is a symptom, a symptom of a corrupt government working for Oligarchs rather than the people, and traditionally, going back to an Oligargy is a HUGE step backwards.

Exactly, which is why he is ready to do anything he must to win, including conspiring with the Russians (Oligarchs and Putin, they're the only deciding bodies in Russia) to win.

He is POTUS, you think they will "neutralize" him?
FBI and CIA are both right leaning organizations, as are the courts. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, I mean that people drawn to such professions lean in to law and order, which is a right wing position, and that's fine.

Not him. What I meant is an investigation will be launched to look into moles in the US system that might've been filtered in, some folks Trump could've placed in certain position in his cabinet or else. They will neutralize a cancer (if there is one) and get rid of those secretly working for the Russians, spies or else, that might've been (unknowingly or not) planted by Trump inside the US governing system.

Yes, it is a strategy, but the point of the investigation was to find FACT, and if you do not accept what Mueller found, then how much do you really care about the law?
I don't like it, but I will accept it.

I think it's foolish to accept the conclusions drawn from a 4 pages back-of-the-cereal-box summary of a 300 + pages document. I'm no tinfoil hatter, but Barr is an obvious puppet and that's another affront to true democratic values.

[SoulReaver]

The legality aspect is irrelevant. It qualifies as collusion.

if Don was aware of it & encouraged it - which he did both privately by sending his son to that meeting & publicly - then wouldn't there be a legal aspect to it (complicity)

about Clinton - that's exactly what I've always told the but-her-mails crowd who like to say she was in a "position of power": secretary of state is no real position of power
you're basically the president's yes-man (or woman). a bit like press secretary but abroad

[Chaka-Z0]

if Don was aware of it & encouraged it - which he did both privately by sending his son to that meeting & publicly - then wouldn't there be a legal aspect to it (complicity)

If McDon was a crook all his life, he probably knows how to get rid of evidences. That's what lawyers are for no? The hard part is figuring out exactly what those meetings were about, which I guess Mueller wasn't able to find. Just like his 1 on 1 meeting with Putin. I was just making the point that collusion may happen even if it's not a criminal act.

about Clinton - that's exactly what I've always told the but-her-mails crowd who like to say she was in a "position of power": secretary of state is no real position of power
you're basically the president's yes-man (or woman). a bit like press secretary but abroad

I mean she had some power, but only within the party and to an extent inside the WH with her connections perhaps, but nowhere near as what the POTUS has. Ultimately she can influence all she wants, but she's not calling the shots.

[Annoyed]

And here we have an editorial which in my opinoin speaks the truth about the Smollett mess.

I'm actually surprised that someone printed it, as it's so far beyond what is considered to be PC these days.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03...smollett-case/

How do you lie to the police, smear an entire city, exploit decades of racial violence suffered by black Americans … and get away with it?

How do you commit a DUI in Suffolk County, but only get charged with speeding — or not charged at all? Or beat someone’s head in at a bar but walk away with a disorderly conduct slap on the wrist?

Like they say in real estate: Location, location, location. You just have to be at the intersection of “PC Politics” Boulevard and “Social Justice” Lane.

Most Americans gasped aloud when they heard that Fox TV star Jussie Smollett was getting a pass after allegedly faking a #MAGA-hat hate crime, noose and all. After the Cook County DA let him walk, Smollett took the story from despicable to disgusting by declaring himself the victim.

“I have been truthful and consistent on every level since day one,” said the guy who was charged with paying two African guys to pretend to commit a white nationalist hate crime against him.

“We believe he did what he was charged with doing. This was not an exoneration. To say he was exonerated by us or anyone else is not true,” Cook County prosecutor Joe Magats said after the charges were dropped.

Yes, America, it’s O.J. Simpson all over again: Everybody knows he’s guilty, they just wanted him to get away with it.

Most of the analysis has been about Smollett’s wealth and celebrity, but that misses the mark. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Wednesday compared Smollett’s sweetheart deal to the college admissions scandal.

“You cannot have, because of a person’s position, one set of rules apply to them and another set of rules apply to everybody else,” Emanuel said.

Uh … really, Rahm? Because you worked for the same Obamas who contacted the Cook County DA asking for “another set of rules” for Smollett. So, there’s that.

Then there’s the entire premise of the progressive left, namely that there should be different rules for different people. Only, it’s not about “wealth and celebrity.” It’s “race and sexuality.”

What — you think the charges were dropped because Jussie’s a rich and famous Fox TV star? OK, what would have happened if the hoax had been perpetrated by Sean Hannity? He’s all those things, too.

But if Hannity got caught falsely claiming two black guys attacked him while shouting “This is Obama Country!,” you think Cook County would be dropping the charges? No, he’d be sitting in a cell right now.

Like I said: “Location.” Smollett, as an openly gay African-American man, has “intersectionality.” It means that, In the world of liberal politics, he’s part of a special victim class that, as Orwell said in “Animal Farm,” is “more equal than others.”

If you need proof, just read the “Rollins memo” in Suffolk County. District Attorney Rachael Rollins literally declares that intersectional criminals — illegal immigrants of color caught breaking the law — will receive special treatment that will be denied to American citizens. A DUI charge for a working-class white guy will be reduced to some lesser misdemeanor for an illegal immigrant, all in the name of social justice.

Under our federal law — not to mention the laws of most civilized nations — immigrants who commit significant crimes while visiting your country are sent home, regardless of their legal status. Visitors have no right to stay, and when they’re rude (not to mention larcenous or violent), the common-sense response is to make them leave.

DA Rollins doesn’t agree. She sees no reason why the shoplifters and drunk drivers of the Dominican Republic shouldn’t be allowed to run over their victims right here in the good ol’ US of A. So she’s announced, publicly and on paper, that she plans to “Smollett” these criminals with special treatment that we mere Americans will not get.

What happened to Jussie Smollett wasn’t “injustice.” It was “social justice.” And if liberals like Liz Warren get their way, you know what Jussie gets next?

A reparations check.

[Chaka-Z0]

And here we have an editorial which in my opinoin speaks the truth about the Smollett mess.

I'm actually surprised that someone printed it, as it's so far beyond what is considered to be PC these days.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03...smollett-case/

Didn't read the whole thing but this part caught my attention

If you need proof, just read the “Rollins memo” in Suffolk County. District Attorney Rachael Rollins literally declares that intersectional criminals — illegal immigrants of color caught breaking the law — will receive special treatment that will be denied to American citizens. A DUI charge for a working-class white guy will be reduced to some lesser misdemeanor for an illegal immigrant, all in the name of social justice.

Garbage. The numbers don't lie, blacks / hispanics are over 6 times as likely to get stopped by law enforcment for ''routine checks'', leading to an arrest for whatever reason, than a white man is, and the amount of black people in jail is disproportionate compared to white people.

To be clear, Smollet is a POS, but this above is simply not true.

[SoulReaver]

The hard part is figuring out exactly what those meetings were about

rusky adoptions of course :|

I guess Mueller wasn't able to find. Just like his 1 on 1 meeting with Putin. I was just making the point that collusion may happen even if it's not a criminal act.[/QUOTE]but by definition collusion (an informal word for "high treason") is criminal isn't it. he just got away with a crime

Rudy Mussolini kept saying collusion aint a crime (in which case why do the neocons insist on saying there was no collusion if it's no biggie in the first place) but he's being disingenuous as usual

[SoulReaver]

And here we have an editorial which in my opinoin speaks the truth about the Smollett mess.

I'm actually surprised that someone printed it, as it's so far beyond what is considered to be PC these days.

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/03...smollett-case/

reality check: just about no one gives a fook

though understandably that story makes a good distraction for 1 of the 2 political camps in the current context (guess which)

so, back to collusion...

[jelgate]

reality check: just about no one gives a fook

though understandably that story makes a good distraction for 1 of the 2 political camps in the current context (guess which)

so, back to collusion...

Putin is good at covering his tracks

[SoulReaver]

Putin is good at covering his tracks

and covering up for his vassals

[Gatefan1976]

https://www.scribd.com/document/4031...o-TV-Producers

[Annoyed]

https://www.scribd.com/document/4031...o-TV-Producers

Partisan crap.
With the exception of the phrase "as a total and complete vindication of President Trump", it's appropriate to smack the talking heads in the media upside the head with reality. They didn't find the witch they were looking for. Because they are so thick headed the media doesn't get it om their own.