The Trump Administration (just Trump) Thread

[gourimoko]

This is the argument I've never quite gotten. Very few people are saying that what Russia did was okay. But the clear suggestion by some Democrats is that what Russia did in hacking the DNC somehow invalids/delegitimizes Trump's election. That's really what's going on here even if it isn't argued openly.

That's not remotely what I've said... in fact, I've said the exact opposite of this.

Well, I'm going to agree with @caf here regarding what the Russians did. I think the U.S. government has leaked illegally acquired information to help one party or the other in all sorts of elections overseas. It's not a very nice thing to do, but we do it. I think a U.S. political party doing what the DNC did is actually worse. Again, even though that kind of thing has happened in the past. Doesn't mean we shouldn't response to what Russia did, though.

So if the United States does something to a foreign power, a people or an NGO, it's fair game if they do it back to us? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly?

I would agree that if it is proven that Trump colluded with the Russians to engage in illegal activity, that would be much worse than anything the DNC did, and he should be impeached.

This is what the investigation is all about.

That's the whole point of this....

Absent that, however, I'm not sure what relevancy the Russian hacking of the DNC has to Trump's Presidency at all.

The Trump campaign is under investigation for collusion with the Russians specifically with respect to the election. How is that not obvious? Trump himself is now under investigation for obstructing the Russian investigation...

?!?

 

[-Akronite-]

This is the argument I've never quite gotten. Very few people are saying that what Russia did was okay.

Well some people, like that dude in the White House, are basically choosing not to even acknowledge what happened and seem unwilling to do anything about it.

But the clear suggestion by some Democrats is that what Russia did in hacking the DNC somehow invalids/delegitimizes Trump's election. That's really what's going on here even if it isn't argued openly.

If collusion occurred, I think this is essentially true. If it didn't, at least in a "what can we do about the guy who ended up president," it wouldn't be true. He'd be valid enough. But it absolutely raises some questions given the extent of their efforts and the margin of victory.

Well, I'm going to agree with @caf here regarding what the Russians did. I think the U.S. government has leaked illegally acquired information to help one party or the other in all sorts of elections overseas. It's not a very nice thing to do, but we do it. I think a U.S. political party doing what the DNC did is actually worse. Again, even though that kind of thing has happened in the past. Doesn't mean we shouldn't response to what Russia did, though.

The president is using it as an excuse to do nothing about Russia basically. We can acknowledge that they're both wrong but I don't see how you can conclude the DNC is worse. And I don't buy your write-off of "well we do it to other countries" because that doesn't make someone doing it to us okay and that doesn't mean it's okay for us to do it.

I would agree that if it is proven that Trump colluded with the Russians to engage in illegal activity, that would be much worse than anything the DNC did, and he should be impeached. Absent that, however, I'm not sure what relevancy the Russian hacking of the DNC has to Trump's Presidency at all.

I mean, it's pretty directly relevant since it was a major part of the election he won. Whether he was involved or not doesn't make it irrelevant.

 

[AZ_]

If ISIS hackers made an effort to dismantle Donald Trump with coordinated cyber attacks, subsequently having an impact on the election in 2020, we would be okay with this because it's in their bes

QUOTE="gourimoko, post: 2729562, member: 2835"]
This is the argument I've never quite gotten. Very few people are saying that what Russia did was okay. But the clear suggestion by some Democrats is that what Russia did in hacking the DNC somehow invalids/delegitimizes Trump's election. That's really what's going on here even if it isn't argued openly.

What's really going on here is conservatives inability to turn this into two separate thoughts.

Whether or not it had a deciding effect on the election, or in anyway invalidates Trump politically, is irrelevant to the point that Russia successfully made an impact on the election cycle.

While that may invalidate him to some, it must be viewed independently.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

You can't possibly spout "what difference does it make" if Russia was involved, and then say the DNC rigged the primary.

I didn't say "what difference does it make" if Russia was involved.

 

[AZ_]

I didn't say "what difference does it make" if Russia was involved.

caf has, probably would have been better off quoting him.

 

[gourimoko]

I didn't say "what difference does it make" if Russia was involved.

Q-Tip, you've.. kinda stepped in for @caf here.. Just to be clear, @AZ_ wasn't quoting you, he was quoting @caf ...

EDIT: AZ beat me to it; but .. I think the point here is that, when we're talking about the Russian hacks, and Trump investigation; why do you and others point to the DNC and it's handling of Bernie Sanders? How is that not an obvious red herring? Who hear supports what the DNC did?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

He'd be valid enough.

Okay, but then you said:

But it absolutely raises some questions given the extent of their efforts and the margin of victory.

Now we're getting somewhere! So what "questions" does it raise, and what do the answers to those questions mean? Because you've said "he'd be valid enough", so what difference does speculation regarding the margin of victory actually mean?

 

[-Akronite-]

Now we're getting somewhere! So what "questions" does it raise, and what do the answers to those questions mean? Because you've said "he'd be valid enough", so what difference does speculation regarding the margin of victory actually mean?

Are we getting somewhere? My point is that it wouldn't make a difference in terms of his standing as president if he didn't collude. It's still relevant information and it pertains to his presidency, but it's not something that would unseat him.

 

[Wrathe]

Not that Russia is influencing and hacking into our elections, or that, the Trump campaign may have colluded with a foreign power?

The emails and data hacked from the DNC is more important than that?

How?!

Our leaders are lying to us ; that should be the story.

You only bolded the last part and took outrage by redirecting what I said should be the story to shit you can spin.

Our leaders. Our. Now just DNC, not just RNC, The People's leadership is lying to us, that should be the story. I don't see that as partisan, nor radical.

Fuck it, Go Red Team! Yah!

 

[gourimoko]

Our leaders are lying to us ; that should be the story.

You only bolded the last part and took outrage by redirecting what I said should be the story to shit you can spin.

Our leaders. Our. Now just DNC, not just RNC, The People's leadership is lying to us, that should be the story. I don't see that as partisan, nor radical.

Fuck it, Go Red Team! Yah!

Maybe we look at the world differently, but I don't view the DNC as "our leaders." I say that as someone who worked for the DNC.

With that said, I'm not spinning shit... the biggest story right now is the one about Russia as well as the one about Trump which seem to be one in the same story... As well as the FBI investigation into his campaign, and the fact that he seems to be obstructing that investigation..

This isn't about any "rah rah" moment for the Democrats -- fuck the Democrats. I'm talking about the President of the United States potentially being a stooge, a plant, a Manchurian candidate...

That's pretty important.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Are we getting somewhere? My point is that it wouldn't make a difference in terms of his standing as president if he didn't collude. It's still relevant information and it pertains to his presidency, but it's not something that would unseat him.

How so? That's what I'm trying to get at. You say it "wouldn't make a difference in terms of his standing as President", but it's still relevant information that "pertains to his presidency." So I'm not understanding it.

My belief is that a lot of people are pushing this simply so that it can weaken him politically as much as possible because they don't like him, and/or his policies. In other words, while openly claiming "it doesn't delegitimize him as President", they are actually trying to use it to do exactly that.

 

[Wrathe]

Maybe we look at the world differently, but I don't view the DNC as "our leaders." I say that as someone who worked for the DNC.

With that said, I'm not spinning shit... the biggest story right now is the one about Russia as well as the one about Trump which seem to be one in the same story... As well as the FBI investigation into his campaign, and the fact that he seems to be obstructing that investigation..

This isn't about any "rah rah" moment for the Democrats -- fuck the Democrats. I'm talking about the President of the United States potentially being a stooge, a plant, a Manchurian candidate...

That's pretty important.

Again, what I said doesn't marginalize anything you've said above, nor insinuate it's truthfulness. Your restating insinuates that something I didn't say to begin with, does. The DNC is part of our Countries leadership, and is just one of MANY examples that our leadership is lying to us. But we wanna sit back and fight Red team Blue team. I just think that's the sad irony.

 

[AZ_]

View: https://twitter.com/wsj/status/880536341431406592

 

[gourimoko]

View: https://twitter.com/wsj/status/880536341431406592

Hope folks can understand.. if this story is true, then that would mean collusion.. it would mean a conspiracy existed between the Russian government and operatives, through Michael Flynn, to get Trump elected...

This would be worse than Watergate.

 

[Tornicade]

The DNC and republican party.. are just that parties. they are not part of the government. they select candidates to run for government with their support.

The parties ultimately choose who,will run for president. the primaries are just a tool to see what the public thnks of the candidates.


7 times the GOP delegate winner was not nominated for president.

What I did see was all of the dnc's internal communication made available for pulic consumption by Russian hackers.

what I didn't see was the republican internal communications.

so there is really no way to compare how the two parties conducted themselves internally.

back to the GOP. on 10 occasions the GOP candidates were not able to lock in enough delegates to secure the nomination. only 3 out of those 10 did the frontrunner (guy with most delegates) actually get nominated.

Its barely been 50 years that both parties relied on public input to select their candidate.

if a Candidate doesn't hit 238 for the Dems or 1237 for the republicans. the candidate with the most delegates aren't a shoo in for the nomination. perhaps we have forgotten because it hasn't happened in 60 years.

Democrats also have super Delegates who aren't bound by the primary votes.

Republicans let states dictate how their delegates are allotted... Democrats have set uniform rules for all states.


Also when candidates drop out.. delegates are reallocated. even further muddling the picture. once again both parties have different rules.


Hilary won the primary based on 609 super delegates votes. that was the swing vote.. had those super delegates voted for Bernie he would of been the nominee.


In other words the democratic party since the Jimmy Carter election have had it in their bylaws to override the popular vote in every given election.