Oh, the hypocrisy...

a reply to: redtic

I can see how the ramifications are oh so much dire than bill Clinton giving the Chinese ballisting missile tech in return for campaign contributions. What exactly are the ramifications in this charade?

Double post

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: redtic

I find it very hypocritical that the fervent Trump supporters on this site are so flabbergasted by the "left"'s perfectly valid concern (or consternation) with the Trump-Russia connection. You know very well that had Clinton won the election and had there been 1/10th the amount of smoke swirling around her administration regarding possible collusion with a foreign adversary as there is surrounding this administration, there would be 10x the outrage from the right. I won't bring up specifics at the risk of derailing a thread, but there was plenty of feigned outrage at Clinton (and Obama) over various "scandals" over the years - now that the shoe is on the other foot, everything is a "nothing burger", to quote a relevant phrase.

Anyhow, I just wanted to point out the obvious. Do not tell me that would not be the case. The fact is, this is all very real - it's all very serious - and we should all be concerned about the revelations that have come forth so far and concerned about the potential ramifications of whatever conclusions are drawn from the investigations in the end.

You plucked your example of hypocrisy from the machinations of your own mind, a hypothetical that is true only in some other dimension where Hillary won the election, which she didn't.

OK, sure... but let's not let that detract from the fact that I'm right..

a reply to: redtic

OK, sure... but let's not let that detract from the fact that I'm right..

We can talk about actual facts and make actual comparisons, for instance the DNC colluding with the media, or Clinton's emails. We can speak about actual examples of hypocrisy instead of making them up.

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: redtic

I can see how the ramifications are oh so much dire than bill Clinton giving the Chinese ballisting missile tech in return for campaign contributions. What exactly are the ramifications in this charade?

He sold them stage separation technology.. I thought he should have been investigated and prosecuted for that back then when it happened. Same as I believe Trump should be investigated for collusion today..

a reply to: Blarneystoner

Ok, so the ramifications are...? What the hell has Trump done that should be investigated? Did he take campaign contribitions? Did he give anything to the Russians? He is being investigated because the left did not believe he could win on his own merit. They cast their vote for a real life criminal, and with all the cheating and lying and spinning, they still lost. They still don't even understand who the real hypocrites are

originally posted by: onthedownlow
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Ok, so the ramifications are...? What the hell has Trump done that should be investigated? Did he take campaign contribitions? Did he give anything to the Russians? He is being investigated because the left did not believe he could win on his own merit. They cast their vote for a real life criminal, and with all the cheating and lying and spinning, they still lost. They still don't even understand who the real hypocrites are

Did he take campaign contribitions? Did he give anything to the Russians?

Those are questions that need to be investigated without obstruction from the Trump admin... that's what we want.

Hillary was investigated over and over.... Bill wasn't on the ballot. I'm not interested in who's a hypocrite. I'm not interested in "But the Clinton's are crooks!" They aren't public servants anymore. I want to know if Trump colluded with the Russians/Putin. If Trump is innocent, y'all have nothing to worry about. Right?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: redtic

OK, sure... but let's not let that detract from the fact that I'm right..

We can talk about actual facts and make actual comparisons, for instance the DNC colluding with the media, or Clinton's emails. We can speak about actual examples of hypocrisy instead of making them up.

Sure we can do that, but that's not the point of the thread. The point is arguing from ideology vs arguing from rationality. It's rational to argue that the Russia story is real, is important and is news. It's ideological (and irrational) to argue its fake, unimportant, and not newsworthy. The point is that the very same people on here making the ideological arguments on this, if provided the exact same scenario with different actors, would be arguing in the exact opposite manner than they are now. That is a fact.

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: redtic

OK, sure... but let's not let that detract from the fact that I'm right..

We can talk about actual facts and make actual comparisons, for instance the DNC colluding with the media, or Clinton's emails. We can speak about actual examples of hypocrisy instead of making them up.

Sure we can do that, but that's not the point of the thread. The point is arguing from ideology vs arguing from rationality. It's rational to argue that the Russia story is real, is important and is news. It's ideological (and irrational) to argue its fake, unimportant, and not newsworthy. The point is that the very same people on here making the ideological arguments on this, if provided the exact same scenario with different actors, would be arguing in the exact opposite manner than they are now. That is a fact.

I agree... and it's time for rational thought to prevail. I'm growing tired of the "Idiocracy" this country has become.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

www.nytimes.com...

www.nationalreview.com...

I can give you the info you already had and knew you had, at your fingertips.

I cant make you read for yourself. I cant make you believe what I think is true. I only ask that you dont waste our time.

Clinton is not hiding the fact in DC. This is absurd. It is accepted at this point. Only CTR still harps on about Mrs Clinton's BS integrity because they are still under contract to do so.

EDIT TO ADD:
Why are we even talking about this? Oh yeah there is no actual evidence of collusion and this is the only thing we got going that sounds like a Them VS us play by "trumpets"

The lie is that its "trumpets" or the entirety of the world wide awake to the BS of the divide.

I used two polar opposite papers. One a right leaning and one a social liberal press.

Its a fact, you just dont know as much as you thought,

Surprise!

TADA

a reply to: redtic

It's also rational to ask why the Democrats can get away with far worse offenses -- selling ballistic missile technology to the Chinese was literally treason in my book, and Bill Clinton should have been sent to prison for life because of it. Obama returning Iran's money probably broke several laws. They are an embargoed country, and no the president cannot just ignore that. There is a long string of quid pro quo "charity donations" made to the Clintons by foreign people, companies, and governments trying to influence national policy. All of this is OK.

But when Trump's son tries to get dirt of Hillary, suddenly that is inexcusable? There is nothing irrational about pointing out a very obvious double standard, and questioning why it should be tolerated.

a reply to: Blarneystoner

The thread is about hypocracy. You responded to my response intended for the OP. I assume that you realize there is currently an investigation ongoing. I assume that you realize the investigatin has become completely partisan. You do realize the very Partisan Comey suggested that the previous administration derailed the Clinton investigation. You do realize that a special counsel was appointed do to Comey's testimony? Do you have a problem with any of that?

All this smoke flying around might mean something more to me if the MSM hadn't taken off for the entire Obama Admin. and giving Hillary a pass during the campaign.So until there is a conflagration,meh.

a reply to: redtic

Sure we can do that, but that's not the point of the thread. The point is arguing from ideology vs arguing from rationality. It's rational to argue that the Russia story is real, is important and is news. It's ideological (and irrational) to argue its fake, unimportant, and not newsworthy. The point is that the very same people on here making the ideological arguments on this, if provided the exact same scenario with different actors, would be arguing in the exact opposite manner than they are now. That is a fact.

That is not a fact by any stretch of the imagination for the simple reason (fact) no such thing has happened. What you are working with is a guess, or worse, a fantasy. And your point about the "Russia story" being rational and important, and the disputation about the Russia story being irrational and ideological, is more of the same.

Again, we can look at the facts (proper) that the DNC rigged the primaries, that HRC cheated in the debates, and that the media colluded with the DNC, and compare your indifference to those with the so-called important and rational and newsworthy accusations made by the same media and DNC that you now parrot, to gauge hypocrisy, ideology and irrationality, if you so choose.

Sooo...

Is THIS...

"The news is real, the facts are FAKE!"

Kinda DEAL??

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Trump was head of the pack.

You mean Hillary was.

This is the kind of response that is now just the standard Trumpstars go to.

Ignore the points, deflect, make it about Clinton.

Pathetic, you guys are all going to end up looking very stupid soon when Trump is impeached for his dealings with a foreign state!

What talking points? the reason why we bring up Hillary immediately is to show you liberals how you contradict yourselves... You get all freaked out over Russia, but you voted for a c*** who sold a Uranium one deal to Russia, which supplys them with products that go into nuclear weapons.. Now, should i be more worried about HRC who sells uranium to Russia or Donald Trump Jr. who got info based off the dirty laundry of the DNC/Hillary/etc?? I think one is way more dangerous than the other, but liberals are too stupid to see it

a reply to: jhn7537

I offer this in support of your argument:

www.nytimes.com...

www.nationalreview.com...


Just in case anyone blinks and starts saying that has been debunked.

Thats one social liberal press and a conservative press writing about the same issue.

We can all individually FIND THE UNBIASED side.

The facts stand alone.

a reply to: kurthall

Here's info. regarding the origin of the birther movement.

www.snopes.com...

a reply to: redtic

Does anyone hear that?


That is the sound of butthurt reverberating around the forum from almost 9 months ago!

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

What I find in many trumpsters here is mild cultist behavior. Cult members who have invested themselves in their particular ''teacher'' ''leader'' prophet'' or ''messiah'' are unwilling to listen to anyone but the cult leader. In cults that believe in a devil, every word and action is not in line with the leaders teaching, is labeled as satanic, or being controlled by satanic forces. From this point of reference all actions and information from the ''outside'' world is false.

Or perhaps, just maybe, they are standing up against an injustice: the vilification of an individual by a voracious mob. Maybe you've noticed the familiar figure being burnt, beheaded, shot and stabbed in effigy.

Yahoos aside, certainly many Trump supporters DO think they are standing up against and injustice, the vilification of an individual. I agree. I think that many do think this. However true, this is also an aspect of cult behavior. Defense of the leader against those who say he is not the prophet, not the messiah or whatever.

As for the voracious mob, yes, we do, and I for one do not agree with these groups. The idea that over the top tantrums by protesting groups is totally ineffectual. One of the reasons is that in this world today, any hope of non violent protest can easily be ruined by those who are not in agreement with the peaceful aspect of the protest and use it for their own platforms.