Here there be never trumps...part 4? - Page 37

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Here there be never trumps...part 4? (Page 37 of 39)

Posted: 3/27/2019 9:13:40 AM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:
You're trying to argue a point I'm not making.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Having DOJ drop their defense of that ACA separation clause lawsuit is going to be really, really dumb politics leading into 2020.

ETA: Assuming the lawsuit is successful.

Good, let it burn.

The sooner all this bullshit tears the . Fed to shreds, the sooner we can begin to recover.

Maybe. I haven't reached Sylvan-levels of nihilism yet.

Trashing ACA without any sort of replacement plan is going to be really stupid politics going into 2020.

The Dem candidate will be touting some version of Medicare-for-all and Trump will be touting...what, exactly? "Muh_Unbuilt_Wall" isn't going to fix the bills from little Johnny's broken arm.

Meh, no one has the balls to do any kind of reform.

Healthcare, immigration, Legislative, economic, whatever.

Just keep the masses placated enough to vote for “our” guy is killing us.

Yeah I don't know if the current system can handle the "big sort" that's we're currently experiencing.

The biggest obstacle I see is that many on the “Right” want some form of .fed love for “their” cause.

The Left has it easy, they’ll accept any kind of . Fed lovin’

Eh. The Founders want some Fed love too. I don't see the issue, as long as it's the right kind.

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

Says the guy that endorsed the use of govt agencies in a political witch hunt for two years.

Trump's own AG has admitted that Russia conducted a military operation to influence our elections in both 2016 and 2018 and that attempts were made to assist Trump's campaign. I'm not sure how you're still coming to the conclusion the investigation was a witch hunt. Absent any direct collusion evidence, it would seem appropriate to start asking why the Russians were helping who they did.

Read the entire letter Attorney General William Barr sent to Congress on the Mueller report: https://t.co/x25DR9lBkU pic.twitter.com/qo0TsykPby
ABC News (@ABC) March 27, 2019

https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/grasping-at-straws-gif-3.gif

We still have Americans denying that the Russians attacked us because the President has spent the last two years calling the whole thing a hoax. Again, Trump's own AG in his report on the investigation confirms this occurred and they attempted to help Trump's campaign. You can find folks in denial that it happened on this page and obviously there are a lot of people that think it's a joke a foreign military interfered in our elections.

What we'll always know:

He was a candidate for President. He was secretly working on a business deal with Russia that would personally make him millions. He never mentions it. When asked about it, he lies. He denies it. Throughout the campaign, he bows in front of Putin.

Smh
Joe Walsh (@WalshFreedom) March 27, 2019

Let me know when you get to “succeeded”.

https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/174335/6155DE98-174A-464E-A497-EEC3BD0B8DC4-891773.gif

Seems like a proper word choice when you're talking about something that's not quantifiable in any meaningful sense.

If I asked the question "Exactly how much did the DNC email release help Trump?" - how would you answer?

If not quantifiable, why do some keep pushing the narrative Russia helped Trump get elected,

Notice how some in this crowd won't ever let that point go.

Because saying "We don't (and probably can't) know exactly how much this impacted the election" isn't the same thing as saying "This didn't happen".

We could have a lengthy discussion talking about how much the Russian interference impacted the election - but in my opinion no one outside of the total partisan crank crowd can seriously answer with "zero".

I fixed that for you. Because to assume “zero” is not an option would presuppose facts not in evidence. You wouldn’t do that, right? Just assume there was impact because you want it to be true?

You're going to make the argument that the release of the DNC emails had zero impact in 2016?

Okay I'll bite.

Why did Trump spend the last month or so of his campaign waving the emails around at rallies?

Trump still would have won without the release of those emails.

Do you agree or disagree with that statement?

You're trying to argue a point I'm not making.

If the release of those emails positively impacted the Trump campaign, then the non-release of those same emails should negatively impact the Trump campaign in the election.

You are claiming the hacked emails that were released helped Trump win election.

I am telling you that if they hadn't released them, he still would have won election.

The only reason this is a "big deal" that those emails were released is because the fbi and Obama administration used it as "justification" for spying on and investigating Trump.

Posted: 3/27/2019 9:14:04 AM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
For the same reason T_S says what he says: to egg on the believers and rile up the non-believers. Of course he’s going to say it. Doesn’t create proof though. That’s my beef. You (and others) like to throw out opinions that you feel or hope will be “obvious” to others, and then build on them like they are facts ... when they are not. Stick to the facts and you’ll find we don’t disagree as often as you’d imagine.

Btw, you totally, inadvertently, lumped T_S and others into the same shill category as Trump.

Bravo, sir.