Random Politics & Religion #24

Prove that Trump has direct ties to Russia then.

That's generally not how this works.

First, a crime has to have been committed before a federal investigation takes place, not the other way around.

This is a pure witch hunt, plain and simple.

They are trying to find a crime so they can charge Trump for <insert whatever crime he supposedly committed by being elected as President>.

To be honest, there should be a law that charges whoever starts federal investigations without stating what crime was committed, or if the investigation was created to find the crime, and none was found, the person who started the investigation should be charged with libel.

You don't know that.

You have no clue as to the person's mental state when he committed this crime. For all you know, he was in the sound state of mind to carry out this attack, since he specifically targeted Republicans and their aides.

Unfortunally, we will never know, since the gunner is the only person who died from this attack. What we do know is that the gunner did ask an aide who was leaving the practice if it was the Republicans or democrat/liberals who were practicing just before the shooting started. That on itself leads to a sound state of mind, and the guy knowing full well what he was doing.

I don't see that as a "sound state of mind". You are right though, I don't know for certain. My guess he was borderline psychotic with a left leaning. I'd think you would have to be to ask such a simple question and then respond by grabbing your gun and firing at people.

Also is the shooter dead? I thought he was apprehended.

Except that is how it is working? I mean there is the Flynn investigation and then an investigation into how Russia interfered with our election. Both are going on.


If we had hard proof there wouldn't be need for an investigation would there?


That is a bit of lipsealer isn't it? Who would ever start an investigation? An investigation may be about proving guilty or proving innocent but there is no intent on the onset. People don't necessarily start investigations because they know someone is guilty but because they have probably cause that they are.

I've openly stated that I do not think Trump is Guilty and that I don't think he should be impeached. I've accepted the possibility that he could be though, which isn't that hard to do. For the time being though he is innocent and that the investigations simply need to be finished.

I find him indirectly asking Comey to stop an investigation that he could have stopped himself a bit weird and if he fires Mueller I would consider that another "red flag".

If you think Trump is someone uncorruptable leader, you have a world of pain coming to you.

Now reportig the shooter is dead.

One would not get that impression reading your posts sir.


And that's the great thing about conspiracy theories is that they can never be satisfactorily debunked to the people that believe in them.

Legally speaking, it would be next to impossible for anyone to state in the gunner's defense that he wasn't criminally responsible for his own actions.

I mean, he actually planned it out (due to the fact that he actually knew exactly where the Congressmen and their aides were practicing, even though he didn't know who was on the field that very day), he brought his weapons for the intent to kill, he specifically asked an outgoing aide who was practicing, and he carried out the act shortly thereafter.

That's an open and shut case of mental competency right there.

I did see a report that the shooter was pronounced dead at the hospital. Trying to find it now.

I believe the moon landing was faked. It was so NASA could get more tax pay dollars !

One would barely get the impression that you even read my posts.



Ah so you don't think Hillary Clinton committed perjury? Or that in the very least she showed gross negligence when handling her email server?

:thinkingface:

for something to be a "Conspiracy theory" it has to either be based off of literally nothing (Chem trail planes, illuminati, ect.) or be proven false via provable structures (Government trying to kill us with flouride water).

In Both cases of Trump and Clinton there is, in the very least, leads that point to a possibility.

I agree that some people do take both cases and stretch them into conspiracy theories such as "Russia was working the republicans to alter the election results by hacking into the voting machines". But again, that isn't what I am saying is even a possibility ;)

Oh don't get me wrong if the idiot was still alive I think he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. His attack was clearly pre-meditated.

I was speaking moreso in how he lacked mental fortitude.

Flynn's investigation was to see if he did something illegal other than lying to the VP. And even then, that's not illegal.

Russia investigation is about if the changed any votes. Which, by multiple testimonies by high ranking Obama Admins, no, they haven't. Now it's gone to the point where liberals/democrats are trying to find something to tie Trump and Russia together.

Due process says hi.

Unless, of course, you rather there be an investigation done on every US citizen to see what crimes they committed, if any.

Except this investigation is a political witch hunt.

Tell us, what crime has been committed that started this investigation to begin with? What crimes did Trump do? Or does Trump no longer get 4th Amendment protections because he ran for President, never mind that he won.

I mean, I have been investigated for something based on simply another persons word. Unless you are saying that every investigation ever has had hard proof before being investigated?



Truthfully the only crime you could potentially say Trump committed at this point is Obstruction of Justice, given Comey's Testimony. I know the argument is that he could have stopped the investigation anyway but the point is that if he could then why bother trying to influence Comey? Unless we operate under the fact that Comey is a complete liar.

You are right though, there is very little implicating Trump other than speculation (Which I will still argue has some merit, but not enough to hold up in any court).


Even Comey himself said that they did not effected the outcome of the election, the investigation is still on-going though from my understanding though so there may be more to it than that.

I do think Trump using Russia to manipulated votes in the US is a pretty dumb theory.

He's a Republican and defeated the Democrats, that's high treason and crimes against humanity.

{Buy?} edit {button}

I'm really unsure if you are just making a general statement or if you still assume I'm a democrat.

No, he was saying what Trump's "crime" is.

There was no collusion, he was running as a Republican (him being a Republican is another debate).

You are 100% a regressive liberal, whether your officially joined the Democrat party or not. You have also substituted political ideology for religion and exhibit all the signs of a cult member.

You are feeling victimized by Trump being elected, everything he does is furthering the trauma you are experiencing. That trauma was created by high priests of the progressive faith using emotional manipulation tactics via mainstream media outlets to induce that feeling inside of you.

Yeah Trump is about as "Republican" as I am.

Since I have asked multiple times and you either can't, or refuse to, give an answer to it, I will ask it again, this time in bold, and in big letters:

Where is the obstruction of justice that you accuse Trump of committing?

Because, by Comey's own testimony, and also by Session's letter of recommendation, Comey should have been fired a long time ago. Not because he was investigating Flynn or heading the Russia investigation at the time, but because he is an incompetent fool who likes to play both sides of the aisle for political gain.


Influence? All he asked was loyalty, because he doesn't know how to be a politician and didn't think at the time that would be improper. Remember, this is a man who has never held office before in his life. Going by his demeanor, he probably thought being President would be very similar to being a CEO.

That's because the investigation has went beyond it's stated narrative and is now in the process of punishing somebody for Queen Clinton's loss.

Seriously. For a guy who keeps stating that only you looks between the lines, you certainly are blind to narratives of actual events.

Hmm.... yeah you know me I clearly wanted Hillary Clinton to the win the election.

Good job at attempting to generalize my opinion.

So basically, I don't think Trump is all that great of a guy and that makes me a regressive liberal that is apart of a cult?

Actually eliroo, after the past 7 months of TDS you have been displaying, I'm more inclined to believe Savael's analysis than your own words.

You are either in denial, or worse, unknowingly in the closet.

Fine, you think Clinton was a bad candidate, but going by your very posts and blind accusations, you think Trump is just as bad, or worse, than Clinton.

Let's be honest, neither candidate honestly deserve to be PotUS. It's only because they went for the big prize together that Trump won. Given any other liberal/democrat, even Sanders, who is a socialist, Trump would have lost. But that's not how the DNC wanted to happen, they actually promised the crown to Clinton, which was their own undoing.

Republicans tried their best to keep Trump from getting nominated, but there was no one candidate who went against Trump that could topple his message. Scott Walker could have, but he made some early mistakes, and honestly, didn't seem to want to be president in the long run.

Trump won because the American People are tired of the bureaucratic state that DC has become. Not because Trump is a leader, but because he is the only one who is not a politician. That is the honest truth.

And this is coming from a guy who voted for Ann Richards in 2016, a dead Democrat (she is the only person who I would capitalize democrat, that's how much respect I have for her) Texas Governor who still was a better choice than either Clinton or Trump.

Thoughts and prayers with the family yadda yadda yadda terrible act of violence blah blah blah LET'S TALK ABOUT RUSSIA.

Please, contain your glee.

We know you are wishing that these people who were attacked were killed today. It's written all over your face.

So, let me ask you this (somebody's going to have to quote me, he blocked me because of feels): Are you going to call the gunman a terrorist, or is that designation only towards supposed Republicans in your viewpoint, like how you call the Bundy's terrorists, or that guy who shot up that Planned Parenthood a terrorist?

Either way, that, along with that Planned Parenthood shooter, are cowardly acts who shouldn't have happened in the first place.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are only looking at the event in a lens that supports your narrative? Or is that a bit too hard to grasp?



Attempting to influence the results of an investigation through intimidation.

I didn't know it was that hard to read, when not only I have clearly stated that but as have many others.


He asked for loyalty and then explicitly stated immediately after things that "hopes" would happen that the person he asked for loyalty from could easily address. You have to be taking the situation very literally to not be able to see how that could be construed as intimidation. Is it really beyond your scope to see how different people can interpret a situation differently? Are you that single minded that you can't accept the possibility of multiple things occuring?

Hell, even I can accept that Trump may have just been misunderstood.

Let's not even dive into the fact that Trump was so insecure that he threatened Comey on twitter.

Furthermore, I don't think him "not being a politician" is good enough excuse here. Didn't republicans tear into Obama for being "inexperienced"? In the words of President McCain "Seems like a double standard to me".



Onto this, do you really think that the people holding this investigation have some sort of pre-conceived narrative? Again you are limiting your scope and speaking in absolutes. At the very least, I accept other possibilities outside of my initial hunch.



So you are basically whatever Political party supports you? Though, I find Trump very "republican" but I will admit that there are some things he claimed on the campaign trail that I liked. Such as his "draining the swamp" plan, which hasn't taken much traction.

That's just about as pointless a topic, so it's a decent substitute.

No thanks.