2020 Presidential Election thread

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 114 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Feb 12, 2021 3:46 PM
posted by CenterBHSFan

They had the worst example of abusive, co-dependent relationships with him.

Trump was the perfect POTUS for this media age of profiting off of rage culture.  There's a reason in the last, I don't know, 10-15 years we've seen the radical fringes of both parties dominating the news cycle - cancel culture NEEDS people to cancel.
Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Fri, Feb 12, 2021 4:52 PM
posted by CenterBHSFan

I don't think that, putting age aside, Trump has the balls to run again. He pissed off a lot of people by not pardoning Assange and Snowden. 

I think at this point even his most ardent supporters are just glad he's gone. Sort of.
The dems and NYTimes aren't ready to let him go. They had the worst example of abusive, co-dependent relationships with him.

Agree with you.  Instead of just letting his tenure fade away, these idiots continue to give him page 1 attention which is all he craves.  Let it go.  He's not coming back in four years in my opinion either.  He's obese and nearing 80 years old.  His health won't be up to it. 

jmog Senior Member
7,737 posts 50 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Feb 12, 2021 8:52 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

My question to you then, what mechanisms are there to punish a President in their last moments of office? If a President commits an impeachment offense on 1/19 does it not matter then? 

Let's say for example, that on January 19, 2017 it was found Obama did in fact spy on Trump and there was evidence. Would it not be within the rights of Congress to start the impeachment proceedings even if they bleed into the Trump Presidency? 

If the Presidency does go from 1/20 to 1/20, then the actions of those times should also be subject to oversight and impeachment of the Congress, within reason. 

Wait, are you acting like it’s not factual information that the Obama admin spied on Trump by using a FISA judge and a fake DNC funded dossier? 


Just curious if you truly believe Obama admin didn’t spy on Trump campaign?


Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Sun, Feb 14, 2021 1:19 PM

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/02/14/lindsey-graham-using-democrat-model-i-dont-know-how-kamala-harris-doesnt-get-impeached/


Hell yea...I hope he is serious.  The 2 tier justice system in this country has to stop

8,788 posts 20 reps Joined Nov 2009
Sun, Feb 14, 2021 2:31 PM
posted by jmog

Wait, are you acting like it’s not factual information that the Obama admin spied on Trump by using a FISA judge and a fake DNC funded dossier? 


Just curious if you truly believe Obama admin didn’t spy on Trump campaign?


I said if there was proven factual linkage between Obama doing it directly as in Nixon tapes level. 

The "spying" in question, you have your view, and I have mine. I don't want to re-litigate it as it is pointless at this junction because we end up talking past each other as we simply do not believe on the same set of facts or aspects of the whole thing. 

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Sun, Feb 14, 2021 8:42 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

I said if there was proven factual linkage between Obama doing it directly as in Nixon tapes level. 

The "spying" in question, you have your view, and I have mine. I don't want to re-litigate it as it is pointless at this junction because we end up talking past each other as we simply do not believe on the same set of facts or aspects of the whole thing. 

In other words, "I wont admit anything that makes me look bad or the dems."



jmog Senior Member
7,737 posts 50 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 8:54 AM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

I said if there was proven factual linkage between Obama doing it directly as in Nixon tapes level. 

The "spying" in question, you have your view, and I have mine. I don't want to re-litigate it as it is pointless at this junction because we end up talking past each other as we simply do not believe on the same set of facts or aspects of the whole thing. 

I didn’t say directly Obama, I said the Obama administration.


Do you believe that the Obama administration did or did not spy on the Trump campaign based on a BS dossier funded by the DNC with the help of the FISA courts?


Just curious if you believe in actual reality or make believe land.


8,788 posts 20 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 9:09 AM
posted by jmog

I didn’t say directly Obama, I said the Obama administration.


Do you believe that the Obama administration did or did not spy on the Trump campaign based on a BS dossier funded by the DNC with the help of the FISA courts?


Just curious if you believe in actual reality or make believe land.


Short answer: No. 

Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.

Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind? 

Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items.  I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier. 

Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse for me. 

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 9:32 AM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Short answer: No. 

Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.

Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind? 

Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items.  I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier. 

Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse 

And you are in the running for post of the year already.  You are absolutely brain washed, live in a massive vacuum of misinformation ....or just plain stupid.  


The evidence that the FBI, DOJ, State Dept. and WH were all working together in a manner that was illegal is overwhelming.  

jmog Senior Member
7,737 posts 50 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 9:43 AM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Short answer: No. 

Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.

Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind? 

Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items.  I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier. 

Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse for me. 

So you agree that the DNC funded dossier started the "monitoring" of people in the Trump campaign.


I understand you want to sugar coat some of the words you are using to defend the left here, but I never said directly Obama and I never said directly Trump.


You basically wrote a few paragraphs to say "well you are right, but I am going to change some of the verbage to make it not sound as bad". You are arguing semantics. The Obama administration used a DNC funded fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy/monitor people in the Trump campaign. 


It's really much simpler than you are making it out to be.

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 9:59 AM
posted by jmog

So you agree that the DNC funded dossier started the "monitoring" of people in the Trump campaign.


I understand you want to sugar coat some of the words you are using to defend the left here, but I never said directly Obama and I never said directly Trump.


You basically wrote a few paragraphs to say "well you are right, but I am going to change some of the verbage to make it not sound as bad". You are arguing semantics. The Obama administration used a DNC funded fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy/monitor people in the Trump campaign. 


It's really much simpler than you are making it out to be.

If you go with his narrative then he is simply saying that the Obama administration was the dumbest people on the planet to think that all that material was actually real.  He doesnt get it both ways.  Either they were all in on spying (obama knew everything) or they were the dumbest people on the planet.  Let him pick.

8,788 posts 20 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 10:11 AM
posted by jmog

So you agree that the DNC funded dossier started the "monitoring" of people in the Trump campaign.


I understand you want to sugar coat some of the words you are using to defend the left here, but I never said directly Obama and I never said directly Trump.


You basically wrote a few paragraphs to say "well you are right, but I am going to change some of the verbage to make it not sound as bad". You are arguing semantics. The Obama administration used a DNC funded fake dossier to get a FISA warrant to spy/monitor people in the Trump campaign. 


It's really much simpler than you are making it out to be.

No. It is more complicated than that as I dispute the fact the dossier started things and played a role. But, I'll let it be as we will never agree on the basic facts. 

You live in your point of view world and I live in mine and we will never see eye to eye on the details. 

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 12:35 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

No. It is more complicated than that as I dispute the fact the dossier started things and played a role. But, I'll let it be as we will never agree on the basic facts. 

You live in your point of view world and I live in mine and we will never see eye to eye on the details. 

Here is where your argument falls short:


The Dossier has been talked about for years as the reason why the FISA warrants were signed.  There literally has never been anyone (Obama, Clinton, Brennan, Comey) ever dispute that with other evidence they had.  THeir silence is deafening.

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 66 reps Joined Nov 2009
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 4:10 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Short answer: No. 

Not as short answer because again, we just differ on the facts. Define spying? Actually spy on Trump or members of the campaign, because the issues get mixed up. Do I think Trump himself was spied on, no.

Did the FBI use legal means to investigate Papadopoulos that were located before the dossier, yes. Is that considered spying in your mind? 

Was the dossier the smoking gun, unclear and timeline is mixed on when warrants were issued by the FISA court on other items.  I've read numerous things over the last four years where the FBI had evidence of Pap without any evidence of the dossier to justify the warrant. Same goes for Manafort, which did not have anything to do with the dossier. 

Again, I really do not want to go down this road, because posters on here just do not even agree on the basic facts and timeframe of everything. At this point, it is beating a dead horse for me. 


Unbelievable.

I guess it's fair to assume then, that the democrat House managers are good-to-go with committing fraud at the impeachment trial last week in using purposefully doctored evidence that they themselves doctored. 


Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 35 reps Joined Oct 2010
Wed, Feb 17, 2021 4:47 PM
posted by QuakerOats


Unbelievable.

I guess it's fair to assume then, that the democrat House managers are good-to-go with committing fraud at the impeachment trial last week in using purposefully doctored evidence that they themselves doctored. 


I guess he's also just going to accept that Neil Armstrong landed on the moon when the evidence clearly shows he didn't.  

jmog Senior Member
7,737 posts 50 reps Joined Nov 2009
Thu, Feb 18, 2021 7:37 AM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

No. It is more complicated than that as I dispute the fact the dossier started things and played a role. But, I'll let it be as we will never agree on the basic facts. 

You live in your point of view world and I live in mine and we will never see eye to eye on the details. 

But it isn’t opinion that the dossier started it, that is factual information that isn’t in dispute. 


8,788 posts 20 reps Joined Nov 2009
Thu, Feb 18, 2021 8:16 AM
posted by jmog

But it isn’t opinion that the dossier started it, that is factual information that isn’t in dispute. 


No, that is in dispute. That is where we disagree and will never see eye to eye. 


Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Thu, Feb 18, 2021 8:25 AM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

No, that is in dispute. That is where we disagree and will never see eye to eye. 


Like I said.....the other side has never disputed this claim by providing any other evidence.  They have never defended their actions with anything.

So no, at this point its not in dispute.  There is nothing to dispute it with.  Just like them, you cannot (or wil not) defend your statement with anything factual.

jmog Senior Member
7,737 posts 50 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Feb 19, 2021 8:55 AM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

No, that is in dispute. That is where we disagree and will never see eye to eye. 


Even the left doesn't dispute that the Steele Dossier is what led to the "investigation". 

8,788 posts 20 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Feb 19, 2021 9:45 AM
posted by jmog

Even the left doesn't dispute that the Steele Dossier is what led to the "investigation". 

You know, fuck it.

According to the OIG Report, the actual Crossfire Hurricane was opened up in July 2016 and it started from the conversation that a friendly government official, from Australia, heard Papadopoulos talking about some shady items. That prompted the FBI to formally open the investigation. Steele was a traditional handler of intel that the FBI used going back to 2010. A field office was handling some of his information, raw information that was unverified. In May 2016 that was forwarded to another field office in NY. However, the Crossfire Hurricane investigation did not get access or information from Steele until September 2016 and then it was only a piece of information as they knew it was not verified. 

Read the report for more information. Chapters 3 and 4 actually explain the timeline of the start of the investigations. 

Now, yes the report goes on to rightly criticize the FBI. However, the report clearly outlines that the Steele Dossier DID NOT lead to the start of the investigation of Crossfire Hurricane. 

https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf

I'll also add that the investigation into Manafort that led to his arrest had nothing to do with Steele as well.



Login

Register

Already have an account? Login