Not until Hillary has sewn up the nomination.
PS: you know who else endorsed Hillary in 2016? Bernie Fucking Sanders!
3 Likes
Dude that is some seriously weak tea. Mueller was pretty obviously trying very hard to not find evidence of collusion with Russiaā¦ and innocent people donāt obstruct that much. Plus weāve now got Trump aggressively abusing his office to the direct benefit of Russia so itās pretty obvious with hindsight being 20/20.
Just let Tulsi go. Bernie and Yang are better candidates and sheās got no shot. Defending her is pointless. Sheās trash.
āThe investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,ā Mueller said. But: āWe did not address ācollusion,ā which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not.ā
Robert Mueller kneecaps President Trumpās no collusion, no obstruction mantra
Sorry, I donāt see a single thing wrong with this dude. Mueller didnāt have enough evidence to convict Trump of colluding with Russia. It says so in his report (even though he DID have enough evidence of obstruction). Should we be shocked that Russia tried to interfere in our election? Countries do that all the time. WE interfere in other countriesā elections all the time
Everything she said there was pretty spot on. Sheās advocating for better election security. I see nothing pro Russia in that
1 Like
Right. I remember this. Collusion is not a legal term. There was not enough evidence to charge anyone with conspiracy
You donāt have to be pro Russia while still accepting actual facts. Yes, they tried to interfere. Yes, we should do a much better job of preventing it in the future. But no, Russiaās interest in messing with our election was not some aberrant act that other countries donāt engage in all the time
I donāt really know anything about Tulsi, but I would note you appear to be making a conflation error.
Tulsi being bold enough to voice a challenge against the establishment isnāt the same as being bold enough to challenge the establishment.
True. Which is why Iām not supporting her. Honestly, I donāt know enough about her (which I should and will research). My only point was that the anti-establishment candidates should be given their say during this debate. I truly believe the people are sick of the status quo
Okay. And what do you think of the Trump campaignās involvement in the election interference? Particularly given:
- new acts of interference as we speak that demonstrate the Trump campaignās true depth of collusion, as it were
- the parts of the report that very clearly, at least to me and so many others who read these sections of the report, demonstrate the Trump campaign did exactly what we are seeing now, but those involved lied or obstructed the investigation (including Trump!) to a degree that made it impossible to legally establish collusion (or an equivalent legal term to the intended meaning)
LOL, man, just using the words āno collusionā is a tell as itās co-opting Trump and the right wingās garbage talking point. āCollusionā is not used anywhere in the report other than to say itās not a legal term, because itās not a legal term. There was a ton of evidence of conspiracy in the Mueller report Volume I, but they did not feel there was sufficient evidence to convict because of a variety of reasons. Under the Trump definition of the word ācollusionā, it was errrrrrrwhere.
And again, Iāll say this loud for anyone paying attention: TRUMP WAS NOT A TARGET OF VOLUME I OF THE MUELLER REPORT. He was barely even mentioned in Volume I. It was all about the people working on his behalf. The fact that he could not understand that he wasnāt a target is how he ended up with Volume II showing a massive amount of evidence for very easy to convict obstruction cases (7 minimum that heās 100 percent guilty of).
If you havenāt read the report, you should. You will see that there were tons of conspiracies attempted that all fell through for one reason or another (many of the worst ones fell through because the press reported on them before they completed, and the actors got scared). I think Volume I reads like a spy thriller featuring some of the dumbest operatives in history, as an additional FYI if youāre on the fence about reading it if you havenāt.
Can you guys maybe just stop responding to Cactus?
5 Likes
Not sure if my ponyās slow or if I just filled in additional backgroundā¦lol.
Yeah, these days, under the conditions of the Mueller probe errroneās getting arrested, because theyāre all clowns and canāt wait to do anything Trump wants (hence Ukraine, a scandal we never would have known about if his acting DNI wasnāt so incompetent).
Back then, most of those people werenāt ready to watch the bus roll over them. Manafort is a good example of this when he tried to distance himself/other advisers from Papadopoulos as he was quite astute that the dude wanted to do all of the crimes.
You donāt see anything wrong with her invoking the possibility of civil war if Mueller had found the dotard colluded with Russia? You havenāt noticed the trope of reactionary lunatics wistfully invoking the possibility of civil war any time the idea of holding the President accountable for crimes is mentioned?
This is one of my favorite self-own maneuvers of anti-establishment marks. You do realize that Russia intervened in the election to undermine/nullify your own progressive political interests and values? Russia intervened to help a candidate who is passing tax cuts for billionaires, locking immigrants in cages, backsliding on climate change, appointing the most anti-abortion pro-corporation judiciary in history, and so and and so on, and youāre like, WE interfere too! Are you at all upset about losing your political rights or is it cool with you because HRC was a war hawk?
P.S. Do you know how many times sheās been on Tucker Carlsonās show, which is the most nativist, racist, reactionary show on cable tv at the moment?
Answer: a lot, although maybe not as much as Glenn Redwald.
1 Like
Paul Manafort, Trumpās campaign manager, is proven to have shared the Trump campaignās internal polling data w/ a Russian intelligence agent:
There are hundreds of pages of other nefarious activity by Trump and his criminal associates, but this piece alone shatters Gabbardās āno evidence of collusionā lie. If she didnāt think there was enough to impeach or whatever then fine, but she cherrypicked from the report and deliberately mislead about Muellerās findings in a way that would make Trump proud.
1 Like
Yeah god forbid anyone espousing a non herd talking point should be heard or listened to. Itās already been decided for us which candidates we like and donāt like
FALL IN LINE SHEEPLE!
I think itās wrong of course, but overplayed to the point of being a detriment to what truly matters and the real dangers we face. I donāt give a fuck about Trump doing the same things others have done. I care about demolishing the elite class and corruption on BOTH SIDES. I think a lot of you guys are way too fixated on Trump. Yeah, heās a lifelong racist, sexual assaulting, money laundering criminal. Heās unfit. He should be impeached or ejected via the 25th. But Iām focused on real change for the future. Iām sick of Trump constantly sucking all the air out of the room and Dems playing right into his hands
Oh, and Iām also sick of people like @simplicitus who are incapable of thinking for themselves and advise others not to either
#BOTHSIDES
The last case of ādemolishing the elite classā as an overriding agenda Iām familiar with was Pol Pot. Thatās just a slogan. Like Trump supporters, you just want someone to shout slogans you are fond of. You never appear to argue for a coherent agenda, because your ideas are not bound by any anchored conception of reality. Thatās why you should be ignored.
Like, whatās your favorite source for news and policy? 4 Chan? Do you prefer the Economist, the New Republic, or Highlights?
3 Likes
Did he just say āsheepleā unironically?
2 Likes
lol at me reading 4chan. No. I get most of my news and/or opinions from independent sources. Certainly not CNN or MSNBC
You donāt think thereās corruption on both sides? You think Biden using his office to pressure Ukraine and getting his son a $50k/mo job is ho-hum? Youāre okay with Obamaās drone war and calling saying Snowden should be tried for treason? You think the centrist establishment Democrats are just innocent bystanders?
Iām very much anchored to Sandersā entire agenda. Iām anchored to the idea of a single payer healthcare system. Ending the war on drugs, foreign intervention, corrupt greed and corruption, etc. There is much Iām anchored to. What Iām NOT anchored to is falling in line with the junk that corporate media spews
What, like zines put out by college clubs? Alt weeklies? High Times?