Trump

[wufan]

The republicans need to come up with someone they can support on some level besides being "better than Hillary".

This is true. Unfortunately, we are seeing a cultural battle rather than a battle for ideas. Trump is somehow winning on the cultural wars, which says a lot of not good things about us as a country.

[boltforge]

Apparently Trump is more conscientious when he calls grieving people of his own ethnicity. First Trump made the "he knew what he was signing up for" comment. Then he tweeted that he didn't say it, and the the lady reporting it was lying. Then Kelly explained what Trump meant when Trump made the statement Trump had denied making.

The republicans need to come up with someone they can support on some level besides being "better than Hillary".

... "more conscientious when he calls grieving people of his own ethnicity" ... Watch Natasha De Alencar's video.

"Racist President Trump Orange-man" an imaginary little orange guy who lives in people's heads. "Racist President Trump Orange-man" has hookers pee on him *and* calls widows to berate them *and* uses Pokemon Go with Russia to make whites kill blacks *and* hates women *and* hates all minorities *and* is creating a race war *and* ... well just go to the NYT to get more ideas.

When faced with video and pictures of someone who is not of Trump's "own ethnicity" the true believers in "Racist President Trump Orange-man" will filter it out. And Natasha suddenly becomes white. Give it a day or two and the true believers in "Racist President Trump Orange-man" will paint her into a rather racist picture as well.

[Aargh]

... "more conscientious when he calls grieving people of his own ethnicity" ... Watch Natasha De Alencar's video.

"Racist President Trump Orange-man" an imaginary little orange guy who lives in people's heads. "Racist President Trump Orange-man" has hookers pee on him *and* calls widows to berate them *and* uses Pokemon Go with Russia to make whites kill blacks *and* hates women *and* hates all minorities *and* is creating a race war *and* ... well just go to the NYT to get more ideas.

When faced with video and pictures of someone who is not of Trump's "own ethnicity" the true believers in "Racist President Trump Orange-man" will filter it out. And Natasha suddenly becomes white. Give it a day or two and the true believers in "Racist President Trump Orange-man" will paint her into a rather racist picture as well.

So, the guy who refused to rent to minorities for over a decade after the Civil Rights Act was passed and who claimed there were some very fine members of the Nazi Party and the KKK is not a racist. Got it.

[wufan]

So, the guy who refused to rent to minorities for over a decade after the Civil Rights Act was passed and who claimed there were some very fine members of the Nazi Party and the KKK is not a racist. Got it.

Plenty of things to not like about Trump, but these things are not true.

He he was sued. He settled without admitting guilt. He said there were some fine people on both sides of the protest in Charlottesville.

[Kung Wu]

Pretty incredible turnaround for the US backed forces taking on ISIS. This is a very neat way to present the timeline on ISIS controlled territory in the Middle East.

[Aargh]

Plenty of things to not like about Trump, but these things are not true.

He he was sued. He settled without admitting guilt. He said there were some fine people on both sides of the protest in Charlottesville.

One side was neo-Nazis and whatever the current version of the KKK is. Maybe there were some non-members who support those positions, but that's what one side was, so I believe that part of my statement is true.

Trump NEVER admits guilt. He settles when he has no chance of winning with his staff of the top lawyers money can buy. There is a better chance that O.J. dindn't do it than Trump didn't do it when he settles.

[wufan]

One side was neo-Nazis and whatever the current version of the KKK is. Maybe there were some non-members who support those positions, but that's what one side was, so I believe that part of my statement is true.

Trump NEVER admits guilt. He settles when he has no chance of winning with his staff of the top lawyers money can buy. There is a better chance that O.J. dindn't do it than Trump didn't do it when he settles.

You are either being disengenuous or are willfully unininformed.

[jdshock]

He said there were some fine people on both sides of the protest in Charlottesville.

I know we are beating a dead horse at this point, but do you seriously believe there were fine people on "all sides" at Charlottesville? Because one side was carrying (tiki) torches and chanting racist slogans. If you're in that group, you no longer get to say "Hey, I'm here for the constitutional rights and free pretzels."

[wufan]

I know we are beating a dead horse at this point, but do you seriously believe there were fine people on "all sides" at Charlottesville? Because one side was carrying (tiki) torches and chanting racist slogans. If you're in that group, you no longer get to say "Hey, I'm here for the constitutional rights and free pretzels."

I don’t believe the torch bearers were fine people. I do believe there are fine people that were protesting the removal of the statue. I also feel that Trump choosing to defend anyone on that side of the argument was, at least, poorly timed.

Now, had the argument been that Trump’s company was sued for discriminatory renting practices, and that his failure to condemn the alt-right were evidence that we should have additional suspicion when Trump says things that could be racist, I would listen to that argument. There’s just no reason to conflate what actually happened.

[shockfan89_]

Can people really not understand that when Trump said there were fine people on both sides, he meant protesting for the removal of statues, and protesting statues being removed? There were MANY fine people in Charlottesville that had nothing to do with white supremacists or Antifa or BLM. I guess fake news works on people that already know how they want the story to be reported. I think those are commonly referred to as low-information viewers.

[jdshock]

Can people really not understand that when Trump said there were fine people on both sides, he meant protesting for the removal of statues, and protesting statues being removed? There were MANY fine people in Charlottesville that had nothing to do with white supremacists or Antifa or BLM. I guess fake news works on people that already know how they want the story to be reported. I think those are commonly referred to as low-information viewers.

But you're saying two different things here. There are absolutely fine people who did not want the statue to come down. Agreed.

I do not agree that there were "MANY fine people in Charlottesville" protesting the removal of the statue. The event had always planned to be a neo-nazi event. My evidence against the event is that it was planned to be a neo-nazi event and neo-nazis were chanting and carrying torches. In my opinion, that's enough to say there were not fine people at the event.

You could change my mind, though. Who were the fine people at this event that were not racists? Do you personally know anyone? Do you have examples of them?

[SB Shock]

Interestingly I read a couple news articles over the weekend from mainstream news services that there is more evidence of democratic collusion with Russian than with trump campaign.

NBC has an article that Mueller investigation is now looking st the Podesta group activivites. Which is a democratic leaning firm.

[shockfan89_]

But you're saying two different things here. There are absolutely fine people who did not want the statue to come down. Agreed.

I do not agree that there were "MANY fine people in Charlottesville" protesting the removal of the statue. The event had always planned to be a neo-nazi event. My evidence against the event is that it was planned to be a neo-nazi event and neo-nazis were chanting and carrying torches. In my opinion, that's enough to say there were not fine people at the event.

You could change my mind, though. Who were the fine people at this event that were not racists? Do you personally know anyone? Do you have examples of them?

I would agree the people chanting and carrying torches were not the fine people. But chanting and carrying torches is a peaceful form of protest? Isn't it?

No, I didn't personally know anyone at the protest that wanted the statues to stay. I also didn't know anyone at the protest that wanted the statues to come down, but that doesn't mean everyone that wanted the statues to come down was aligned with Antifa or BLM or there to cause violence.

The fine people were the ones I saw on video peacefully protesting for both sides. The point is, and the point I believe Trump was making, is that peaceful protest should always be protected (regardless of which side you're on). It does not make you a white supremacist if you feel the statues should not be removed, or if you defend the white supremacists rights to peacefully protest. It does not make you a violent member of Antifa or BLM if you feel the statues should come down.

That said, there was blame in Charlottesville on many sides (white supremacists, Antifa, BLM, event planners, police, ...).

[wufan]

But you're saying two different things here. There are absolutely fine people who did not want the statue to come down. Agreed.

I do not agree that there were "MANY fine people in Charlottesville" protesting the removal of the statue. The event had always planned to be a neo-nazi event. My evidence against the event is that it was planned to be a neo-nazi event and neo-nazis were chanting and carrying torches. In my opinion, that's enough to say there were not fine people at the event.

You could change my mind, though. Who were the fine people at this event that were not racists? Do you personally know anyone? Do you have examples of them?

I was watching the protests on Fox News before the murder took place. They interviewed a handful of people that were pro and con. None of the people they interviewed were Antifa or White Nationalists.

In the camera shots they also filmed, but did not interview, people that were clearly (based on attire) White Nationalists. I believe David Duke was speaking to them and they were careful not to give him a platform on which to speak.

The event organizer is minimally controversial. He’s a white rights advocate that believes that a race war is possible. The strongest advocation I’ve heard from him is the repeal of affirmative action laws. He may have less tolerable viewpoints of which I am unaware. I believe he view himself as Alt-Right, but is not aligned with new-Nazis.

[CBB_Fan]

Interestingly I read a couple news articles over the weekend from mainstream news services that there is more evidence of democratic collusion with Russian than with trump campaign.

NBC has an article that Mueller investigation is now looking st the Podesta group activivites. Which is a democratic leaning firm.

There are essentially three investigations under way from what I understand. One is about fraud, one is about collusion with the Trump campaign, and the last is about Russian influence of the actual election.

The Podesta group is a part of the first investigation, not the second. The article mentions that it grew out of investigation into Paul Manafort, who as I previously mentioned was involved in the Russian system of kickbacks associated with the sale of Uranium One. The Podesta Group lobbied for Uranium One, which is how they tie into all of this. But digging deeper, they have a second connection Manafort. Manafort received under-the-table money from Russia for his work installing pro-Russia (since deposed) Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovich, who also paid the Podesta Group ~$900,000 for lobbying purposes.

But again, this is entirely separate from the investigation into the Trump campaign's possible collusion with Russia, which involves a quid pro quo agreement by the Russians to give illegal in-kind donations in the form of Podesta email leaks in exchange for promised pro-Russia policy changes by the Trump team, in particular promises not to retaliate over Crimea and to end the Magnitsky Act.

If I'm allowed to voice an actual conspiracy theory, it would seem to me that the above reinforces the current investigation. It would change the entire investigation if Podesta wasn't "hacked" but instead knowingly allowed his emails to be taken in exchange for continued kickbacks. Of course there is no evidence for that, but circumstantially it makes a sort of sense.