Politics thread (USA Elections 2016) - Page 115

Also “does not exonerate him”. But yeah still good for Trump, if there’s not enough evidence to convict I’m fine with that, determining that is the purpose of the investigation. Not going to dwell on it for years like Clinton’s emails.

Just a reminder that this is Trump’s boy’s interpretation of the report, which won’t be fully released for weeks or months if ever.

On March 24 2019 20:02 NMcNasty wrote: Also “does not exonerate him”. But yeah still good for Trump, if there’s not enough evidence to convict I’m fine with that, determining that is the purpose of the investigation. Not going to dwell on it for years like Clinton’s emails.

Take the blindfolds off a bit. HE IS EXONARATED FROM RUSSIAN COLLUSION, this is the unquestionable part of the report.

Not only there was no collusion, Trump and his people declined multiple offers to work with foreign agents

despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

The only thing that was left up to the Attorney General was wether or not there was obstruction (remember, to a crime that did not happen)

Obstruction of Justice – The Special Counsel did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other – as to whether President Trump’s words and actions during the investigation, most of which have been the subject of public reporting, constitute obstruction, saying “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” The Special Counsel report instead sets out evidence on both sides and leaves it to the Attorney General to make the determination. The Attorney General explains his determination: “After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Counsel's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President committed an obstruction-of-justice offense.”

The only evidence of obstruction is Trump tweeting about it, btw.

But yeah still good for Trump, if there’s not enough evidence to convict I’m fine with that, determining that is the purpose of the investigation.

It's good you can see some evidence, but the investigation was never about finding any truth. It was about using the judicial power to harras people close to Trump and give the media ammo for years to target the president and his people.

It issued more than 2,800 subpoenas, executed nearly 500 search warrants, obtained more than 230 orders for communication records, issued almost 50 orders authorizing use of pen registers, made 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence, and interviewed approximately 500 witnesses.

On March 24 2019 22:58 GoTuNk wrote: Not only there was no collusion, Trump and his people declined multiple offers to work with foreign agents

That was an interesting part of the letter because it was never really fully conceded by the Trump campaign that they were approached by Russian agents offering help with the election. We don't have the report, so we don't know if there's actual evidence of Trump campaign people declining assistance or if its just Barr's assumption/spin since no explicit evidence of collusion was found. I still find it hard to believe people in the Trump campaign said 'no thanks' to the Russians, then lied to authorities about their contacts with them for basically no reason. But without hard evidence there isn't a course of action to take at this time.

Trump has been antagonistic to Russia, he withdrew from the INF treaty, raising the probability of nuclear war as this means medium range missiles can be stockpiled again and raising the hair trigger alert. It means there is less time to respond to an alleged nuclear attack from either side, so both sides are more on edge. This has been one of the worst policy decisions from Trump-(on top of spending an extra 2 trillion on upgrading the nuclear weapons program). Although Putin is a brutal dictator, it would be beneficial to the world if Trump was not antagonistic towards the russians and worked towards nuclear disarmament. the liberal media are insane to criticize him over this, it means they are hawkish to the point of creating a potential nuclear holocaust.

Like i said before, this whole thing is just a joke. I mean if you care about election interference, the rich intefere far more-but that is not the subject of debate because the rich own the media. You can't let yourself care about this topc that's been played non stop for the past few years, it simply doesn't matter.

This is petty, but the icing on the cake nonetheless

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/25/micha...charged-with-wire-and-bank-fraud.html

On March 25 2019 03:02 Stroggoz wrote: Trump has been antagonistic to Russia, he withdrew from the INF treaty, raising the probability of nuclear war as this means medium range missiles can be stockpiled again and raising the hair trigger alert. It means there is less time to respond to an alleged nuclear attack from either side, so both sides are more on edge. This has been one of the worst policy decisions from Trump-(on top of spending an extra 2 trillion on upgrading the nuclear weapons program). Although Putin is a brutal dictator, it would be beneficial to the world if Trump was not antagonistic towards the russians and worked towards nuclear disarmament. the liberal media are insane to criticize him over this, it means they are hawkish to the point of creating a potential nuclear holocaust. Like i said before, this whole thing is just a joke. I mean if you care about election interference, the rich intefere far more-but that is not the subject of debate because the rich own the media. You can't let yourself care about this topc that's been played non stop for the past few years, it simply doesn't matter.

qft

releasing the report wont change anybody's mind as I said

On March 25 2019 03:02 Stroggoz wrote: Trump has been antagonistic to Russia

Russian interference works in mysterious ways

On March 25 2019 03:02 Stroggoz wrote: Trump has been antagonistic to Russia, he withdrew from the INF treaty, raising the probability of nuclear war as this means medium range missiles can be stockpiled again and raising the hair trigger alert. It means there is less time to respond to an alleged nuclear attack from either side, so both sides are more on edge. This has been one of the worst policy decisions from Trump-(on top of spending an extra 2 trillion on upgrading the nuclear weapons program). Although Putin is a brutal dictator, it would be beneficial to the world if Trump was not antagonistic towards the russians and worked towards nuclear disarmament. the liberal media are insane to criticize him over this, it means they are hawkish to the point of creating a potential nuclear holocaust. Like i said before, this whole thing is just a joke. I mean if you care about election interference, the rich intefere far more-but that is not the subject of debate because the rich own the media. You can't let yourself care about this topc that's been played non stop for the past few years, it simply doesn't matter.

so you're saying Trump is a Russian spy?

Uhm, Trump withdrew from the INF treaty because Russia were already violating the deal for years...

I acctually served my military service at the norwegian/russia border and I really wish our relationship would get better. But this agreement going down the drain is all russia's fault imo

the US has been the primary initiater of nuclear aggression since the bomb was made, and since the cold war ended, they broke an agreement with the russians to not expand their missile's into eastern europe in 1994 (i think?). Trumps policy is a rather standard aggressive act as US foreign policy goes, so i don't really see him being anything other than hostile to Russia based on his foreign policy. There are diplomatic measures he could take with russia to de-escalate, which i think Russia would probably be open to since they are the weaker nation, and hurt far more in an arms race.

Not sure if still the case, but america only ever made one war plan for russia during the cold war; called 'General War', it is a plan to nuke every major city in china and russia in the case of any sort of act of aggression from Russia (sending a brigade or more in an attack)

It has been revealed a few times that the russians do in fact have a doomsday device-a system that is set to automated retaliation based on a computer signal from the kremlin that is activated during a nuke attack + red button from a couple officers in an underground bunker that would be cut off from the world.

Same with countries like Pakistan, officers don't need permission from the president to nuke india.

Let's be honest, the "agreement" not to expand into Eastern Europe is a fucking joke, who is Russia or the USA to decide which alliance other countries would wanna join into? It makes perfect sense for a country like mine to join into an alliance with the USA considering the advantages you get out of it. I hear the same excuse by russian politicians for the past 30 years ... " uuuh the USA is so unfair, they said NATO is not gonna expand to the East post WW 2 you guys, and they didnt keep their promise you guys" ... maybe if Russia didn't follow a shitty path for the past 200 years then someone would wanna join in an alliance with them. The only alliances they've been in were forced upon other countries, there is a reason almost all Eastern European countries now completely despise Russia.

If you have to choose between a path of progress and that of complete stagnation, what would you go for...

That being said, I doubt the USA will expand NATO further than its current borders e.g. it would never accept Ukraine. That would almost certainly result into an instant political mess since Russia will almost certainly just forcefully go into Ukraine while the procedure is finished and they become an actual member, and the USA would have no other option but to back off looking like idiots (cause the other option would be a nuclear war basically....) That was one of plenty of reasons Russia took Crimea

The russian system was complete savagry, but it did prevent the country from being a 3rd world nation. Before they went leninist/stalinist-it was just 'third world', no economic development, then it industrialized. The privitizations killed millions of people in the 90's and it went back to being 3rd world. From what i've seen most people in east europe prefer the old system because they actually had economic well being in it. (There are polls on this)

you don't have to align yourself with any super power. There was something called the non-alignment movement with the nations from africa and south east asia that wanted to be free from either of russian or american imperial control, during the cold war. It didn't end well, of course, since they simply got subjugated and taken under American control. But the idea was to have their own free political and economic system, if they accomplished this, there probably wouldn't be such a thing as a third world nations today.

I believe your polls... Those polls show how decisions of this sort shouldn't be left to the majority of people cause they are fucking idiots. If it were up to the old generation here, they'd rather have their old communistic leader back, have fixed salary, work in a factory and line up with the entire time once a year, during Christmas, so they can buy fucking bananas. Bulgaria is the most corrupt piece of shit country in the entire EU and it is literally light years ahead of where it used to be 30 years ago and I can't say its because of technological advancement... it's to be accounted that the country was publicly run by the mob for 15 years after communism fell, literally every successful business was paying a "protection" fee to the mafia and mob bosses were constantly killing each other so that slowed shit down by a lot

The problem of not aligning with any movement is exactly what you've pointed out. If you don't - you will get wrecked by a leading party, regardless of how well you're progressing... it's the sad truth

Naturally, alignment doesn't mean shit by definition, since there's still plenty of African countries aligned to France and actually losing shitton because of it, yet if they stop, they'd most likely fall into a deep economical crisis.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/22/world/africa/africa-cfa-franc-currency.html

This ally wasn't brave enough and came short, he was suppoused to #PunchANazi

hahahaha

Sadly Loco is missing and not posting his retarded hot takes so I'll artifically keep filling the void with other daft people's posts in twitter:

where do you even find these

On April 04 2019 21:11 Spitfiree wrote: where do you even find these

I assume you dont use twitter... its a cesspool where monsters like these dwell everywhere.

I can post these every single day