Trump's Russian Collusion

[cradleandshoot]

See....fans of this administration like socialism. We’re not all that bad.

If you paid for that socialism. Sure. I'd be down with that.

But what you're really cheering for here is socialism for you....and handing the bill for that socialism to your grandkids. All while telling your grandkids that "socialism is bad"..."shut up and work harder".

You better hope they don't turn the tables on the people who did this to them......or the 65+ year olds are in for a rough ride in the coming decades.

In reality a Fan isn't all this spending by the government just socialism? I have always thought of it as how the government spends all the money they take in. Once they get it we taxpayers have zero say in where it goes. When I think of socialist ideology I think of Mayor Bloombergs plan to eliminate salt shakers in restaurants and outlaw or tax sugary drinks. IMO socialism comes when a benevolent and loving government wants to dictate how we live our lives every day because they know what is best for us.

[youthathletics]

Schiff is trying to play god. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... lower-imp/

#whackamole #clownshow

[Peter Brown]

It sort of looks like this whisteblower dude (I'll refrain from posting his name though it is literally everywhere now) is indeed a very invested Democrat. If you believe the photos circulating, and no one has denied them, he is on very close terms with Schumer, Clinton, Pelosi, and Warren.

Also to show how incredibly difficult it is to fire anyone in government, this guy was let go from the CIA in 2017 for leaking, but simply transferred to another agency.

Finally, journalists/Democrats always accuse Trump of fascism, but seem to be just fine with suggesting that anyone who shares a whistleblower’s name *that has already been printed in newspapers and online for millions to see* should get sent to prison. I mean, What the heck?

[Bandito]

Why isn’t the media covering the Alabama/LSU crowd going wild for Trump like they did the light booing he received in DC @ the nationals game?(mind you that 93% of people in DC voted for Killary). That’s why the media is FAKE NEWS. Every day Americans love Trump. The media is working in overdrive to lie, and deceit the public as well as cover up for child rapists who are Democrat (Epstein didn’t kill him self). How anyone can be a Democrat today is mindboggling and shows your stupidity

[MDlaxfan76]

Not to reply to trolls, but clearly our resident hasn't actually watched CNN post game. It was covered thoroughly and straight, running tape and consistent with the crowd responding positively to Donald and Melania. It's in the loop for rotation, as I've seen it twice on CNN and I haven't had the TV on that much.

Is it an important story deserving more time?
Of course not.

[a fan]

I didn’t know a mixed economy was socialism?

So you're fine with socialism. Neat.

This forum is hilarious. Instead of owning up and and admitting that obviously LSU and UAlabama is the very letter of the definition of socialism.....you and 6ft and everyone else confronted with this fact decide your brains can't handle that yep, that's socialism....choose instead to give it a different name.

Go right ahead, comrade bandito. Call your socialism whatever you want if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Trump has you pegged. More socialism than we've ever had, and fake conservative TrumpFans across America are cheering.

He's buying you off with borrowed government money. Nice job, mate.

[a fan]

It sort of looks like this whisteblower dude (I'll refrain from posting his name though it is literally everywhere now) is indeed a very invested Democrat. If you believe the photos circulating, and no one has denied them, he is on very close terms with Schumer, Clinton, Pelosi, and Warren.

This nonsense again.

You left out the part where you ask whether or not the WB told the Truth. Or if, for example, Trump and Giuliani confirmed the main point of the WB's allegation. (psssstt.....they did confirm it was true).


2019 has been a rough year on logic.

[a fan]

In reality a Fan isn't all this spending by the government just socialism?

Technically, and using the definition of socialism-----it's when the government owns and operates the entity in question.

That means things like government owned parks, roads, schools, utilities, and universities are letter of the law examples of socialism.

The rest of what you describe are merely government subsidies----and are loosely described as social programs. Libertarians will tell you that subsidies are bad because they distort free markets.

[cradleandshoot]

In reality a Fan isn't all this spending by the government just socialism?

Technically, and using the definition of socialism-----it's when the government owns and operates the entity in question.

That means things like government owned parks, roads, schools, utilities, and universities are letter of the law examples of socialism.

The rest of what you describe are merely government subsidies----and are loosely described as social programs. Libertarians will tell you that subsidies are bad because they distort free markets.

Technically, if the government is paying for it they will always have the last say in how the money is spent. Who owns the military? The taxpayers pay for it but have no say in where the money goes. The government pays for our public schools and take great pains to set the agenda. Your comment about public parks is interesting. In good old Upstate NY they are floating about new laws that ban smoking anywhere in a public park. I detest all cigarettes to no end. If you are paying your taxes to support the park, you probably have a right to smoke. The government provides these parks and pays for them with our money and "user fees" The government will also tell you what you can and can not do while your enjoying them. With all our freedom more and more so every day come great restrictions.

[Trinity]

Subpoena Stormy Daniels and let her describe the campaign crime Individual 1 committed to get elected. (Does anyone doubt Trump would do the same?) Include the slam-dunk Mueller Obstructing he did to stay in office. Illustrate in full the months long corruption of Ukraine by the Three Amigos and Trump. Vote. The Senate can try him in a week. If it’s not self-evident he’s unfit, he’ll survive. Then we can all vote.

[seacoaster]

Schiff is trying to play god. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... lower-imp/

I think you mean "trying to keep things relevant." You're right about a clown show; that's what Schiff is trying to prevent.

[seacoaster]

"It sort of looks like this whisteblower dude (I'll refrain from posting his name though it is literally everywhere now) is indeed a very invested Democrat."

Again, irrelevant; only the fact-deflection posse cares. It doesn't matter if he is a Democrat, Republican, Catholic, Atheist, or Swedish. Ever single thing he reported has been verified by the people in the White House, on the ground, on the phone, and in the corridors of diplomacy. Facts is facts.

[a fan]

Seacoaster, the Trump era has left me wondering if these people teach their children with this logic.

"Dad, my teacher told me 1+1=2. Is that true, Dad?"

TrumpEraDad "That's impossible to tell, honey. First, I need to know if your teacher is a Republican, or a Democrat"


Every year, this nutjob partisan nonsense gets worse.

Trump doesn't worry me nearly as much. He's go away eventually. The voters and their "way of thinking" isn't going anywhere. That scares the heck out of me.

[seacoaster]

Seacoaster, the Trump era has left me wondering if these people teach their children with this logic.

"Dad, my teacher told me 1+1=2. Is that true, Dad?"

TrumpEraDad "That's impossible to tell, honey. First, I need to know if your teacher is a Republican, or a Democrat"


Every year, this nutjob partisan nonsense gets worse.

Trump doesn't worry me nearly as much. He's go away eventually. The voters and their "way of thinking" isn't going anywhere. That scares the heck out of me.

Exactly. It's depressing.

[a fan]

And how many more stories like this one do TrumpFans and TrumpApologists need to hear before the wake the F up, and realize that the "Deep State" are Trump's own people who are horrified by Trump's nonstop shenanigans?

All the leaking, all the disobeying of orders. It's All Trump's people. This makes perfect sense to anyone with even a shred of common sense left....

Headline: Nikki Haley claims top aides tried to recruit her to ‘save the country’ by undermining Trump




https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... RQwpVQ3ixE

[old salt]

Trump didn't generate this ME mess, he inherited it & is making progress cleaning it up, without massive invasions, occupations & nation building.
You parrot talking points after every minor change in deployed forces level, with no regard as to what's changing.

Where was this beneficence and wisdom when you were hammering Obama for the ME mess he didn't create? You couldn't come up with a more partisan statement if you tried.


You're projecting. with your claims of me "parroting talking points". I'm not criticizing Trump here, sorry to tell you.

All I have claimed----correctly----is that we haven't changed course in the ME, and Trump isn't the isolationist that you claimed a couple of years ago. That's not a criticism. It's a fact. I could give a squirrel square about the new half wit excuses as to why our men and women "need" to be over there.

We now have troops----lots of them---in Saudi Arabia. And now we have tanks in freaking Syria. Sweet.

Do you know what comes with that, free of charge? Bullsh*t excuses as to how "gee whiz, we can never leave now". Just wait until you hear the excuses as to "why we can't leave (fill in the country)...they're always a pleasure to hear.

My favorite excuse yet---and it should make you happy that this excuse comes from Trump haters/Dems/libs/whatever you want to call them------"what about the Kurds"?

Yeah. I don't care about the Kurds. If the Kurds were important, we should have either signed a treaty with them, or never left Iraq. Pick one.

Only part of this discussion that's direct at you is to say: you were incorrect that Trump is an isolationist. He's three years in, and he's shown he's no different from either Obama or Bush. And if Biden beats Trump? He'll be just the same, if not worse.

Obama inherited a stable Iraq, well on it's way to recovery.

I strenuously objected when Obama announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq & then his delay in coming to Iraq's rescue.
Exactly what I feared happened, happened.

I strenuously objected when Trump announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Syria, both times.
Fortunately, he listened to his chain of command, relented, walked back his decision & the chain of command adapted.
I'm consistent in not pulling out for political reasons until there's a reasonable chance we won't have to return.

The force levels, stakes & consequences in those 2 cases were markedly different.
We're no longer on the offense in the ME. Our mission is defensive, to maintain stability.

You're so blinded by viewing everything through your (R) vs (D) prism that you ignore the obvious.
Trump IS withdrawing from the ME, compare our force levels from when he took office.
...more importantly, compare their missions. We're no longer in a large scale war vs IS.

We're not just supporting the Kurds for humanitarian reasons.
They're our force multiplier in the ongoing battle to keep IS ineffective.
...& we don't have tanks in Syria (another dumb talking point).

The rest of our forces are there to help defend our Arab & Israeli allies (& themselves), deter Iran, keep the sea lanes open/oil flowing, & maintain a force presence in a critical region.
Just like our larger force levels maintained in EU & W Pac, except the Arabs are bearing more of the costs of our presence.

[CU77]

I strenuously objected when Obama announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq

And did you strenuously object when George W. Bush signed the treaty that required exactly that?

No you did not.

Rs and Ds, Rs and Ds, that's all that matters to you.

[old salt]

I strenuously objected when Obama announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq

And did you strenuously object when George W. Bush signed the treaty that required exactly that?

No you did not.

Rs and Ds, Rs and Ds, that's all that matters to you.

That's pure BS. Obama's phony, fig leaf excuse, to dodge accountability for his decision to withdraw ALL our forces.

What SOFA was in place when Obama sent troops back into Iraq. where they remain today, with no SOFA ?

Bush didn't pull out, Obama did.

Political hacks don't even use that excuse anymore.

[a fan]

Obama inherited a stable Iraq, well on it's way to recovery.

No. No he didn't. He inherited an Iraq that needed a large US military presence to keep it stable.

Not even close to the same thing. I

I strenuously objected when Obama announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq & then his delay in coming to Iraq's rescue.
Exactly what I feared happened, happened.

Yes. And I cheered.

I strenuously objected when Trump announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Syria, both times.
Fortunately, he listened to his chain of command, relented, walked back his decision & the chain of command adapted.
I'm consistent in not pulling out for political reasons until there's a reasonable chance we won't have to return.

Yes. And I cheered. So how did it escape your attention that I'm just as consistent as you are, and could give a *hit as to Obama's or Trump's party affiliation. I cheered both Obama and Trump as they decided to get our people out of there. And yet you're giving me grief for partisanship....total and complete nonsense.

The force levels, stakes & consequences in those 2 cases were markedly different.
We're no longer on the offense in the ME. Our mission is defensive, to maintain stability.

Great. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You're so blinded by viewing everything through your (R) vs (D) prism that you ignore the obvious.
Trump IS withdrawing from the ME, compare our force levels from when he took office.

Got a cite for that? Because NYTimes disagrees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/worl ... ments.html

We. Can't. Leave. If we could, we'd have zero troops in Syria. Zero in Afghanistan. Zero in Kuwait. Zero in Saudi Arabia. And we sure as *hit wouldn't need Prestwick as a stopping point. If you want to tell me the 600 or so troops in Syria "don't count", I've got 600 American families who would strenuously disagree with your assessment. We're in the same countries we were in when Trump took office. Scoreboard.

...more importantly, compare their missions. We're no longer in a large scale war vs IS.

Right. Now drones do it. How many sorties since Trump took office?

...& we don't have tanks in Syria (another dumb talking point).

Oh I agree it's a dumb talking point. The problem is, it's YOUR talking point, or have you forgotten that it was YOUR citation that told me and the forum about the Syria Mechanized Forces??

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... s-to-syria

We're not just supporting the Kurds for humanitarian reasons.
They're our force multiplier in the ongoing battle to keep IS ineffective.

The rest of our forces are there to help defend our Arab allies (& themselves), deter Iran, & keep the sea lanes open/oil flowing.
Just like our larger force levels maintained in EU & W Pac, except the Arabs are bearing more of the costs of our presence.

Great. You seem to want to discuss what our troops are doing. That's great.

All I'm saying---and I have no clue why you are even attempting to disagree----is that we are STILL THERE. That's it. I make no other claim, other than to say "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

When I tell you that that the overall American Strategy under Trump and Obama are the same, you claim partisanship. This makes ZERO sense.

Further, when I discuss strategy, you want to shift the conversation to tactics.....troops numbers, what they are there for, yada, yada. That's all fascinating stuff, and I like hearing about it....but it doesn't refute my point. Our strategy is the same, and hasn't changed in 20 years.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Obama inherited a stable Iraq, well on it's way to recovery.

No. No he didn't. He inherited an Iraq that needed a large US military presence to keep it stable.

Not even close to the same thing. I

I strenuously objected when Obama announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Iraq & then his delay in coming to Iraq's rescue.
Exactly what I feared happened, happened.

Yes. And I cheered.

I strenuously objected when Trump announced he was pulling ALL of our troops out of Syria, both times.
Fortunately, he listened to his chain of command, relented, walked back his decision & the chain of command adapted.
I'm consistent in not pulling out for political reasons until there's a reasonable chance we won't have to return.

Yes. And I cheered. So how did it escape your attention that I'm just as consistent as you are, and could give a *hit as to Obama's or Trump's party affiliation. I cheered both Obama and Trump as they decided to get our people out of there. And yet you're giving me grief for partisanship....total and complete nonsense.

The force levels, stakes & consequences in those 2 cases were markedly different.
We're no longer on the offense in the ME. Our mission is defensive, to maintain stability.

Great. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

You're so blinded by viewing everything through your (R) vs (D) prism that you ignore the obvious.
Trump IS withdrawing from the ME, compare our force levels from when he took office.

Got a cite for that? Because NYTimes disagrees.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/21/worl ... ments.html

We. Can't. Leave. If we could, we'd have zero troops in Syria. Zero in Afghanistan. Zero in Kuwait. Zero in Saudi Arabia. And we sure as *hit wouldn't need Prestwick as a stopping point. If you want to tell me the 600 or so troops in Syria "don't count", I've got 600 American families who would strenuously disagree with your assessment. We're in the same countries we were in when Trump took office. Scoreboard.

...more importantly, compare their missions. We're no longer in a large scale war vs IS.

Right. Now drones do it. How many sorties since Trump took office?

...& we don't have tanks in Syria (another dumb talking point).

Oh I agree it's a dumb talking point. The problem is, it's YOUR talking point, or have you forgotten that it was YOUR citation that told me and the forum about the Syria Mechanized Forces??

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... s-to-syria

We're not just supporting the Kurds for humanitarian reasons.
They're our force multiplier in the ongoing battle to keep IS ineffective.

The rest of our forces are there to help defend our Arab allies (& themselves), deter Iran, & keep the sea lanes open/oil flowing.
Just like our larger force levels maintained in EU & W Pac, except the Arabs are bearing more of the costs of our presence.

Great. You seem to want to discuss what our troops are doing. That's great.

All I'm saying---and I have no clue why you are even attempting to disagree----is that we are STILL THERE. That's it. I make no other claim, other than to say "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

When I tell you that that the overall American Strategy under Trump and Obama are the same, you claim partisanship. This makes ZERO sense.

Further, when I discuss strategy, you want to shift the conversation to tactics.....troops numbers, what they are there for, yada, yada. That's all fascinating stuff, and I like hearing about it....but it doesn't refute my point. Our strategy is the same, and hasn't changed in 20 years.

But the nomenclature is “impressive”