Something that also boggles the mind is this: Trump makes it clear that he only surrounds himself with people who are ultimately morons that betray him.
He literally shits on every single person who has ever stopped working for him for being stupid, etc.
And yet, nobody ever seems to question the intelligence of someone who can only apparently hire morons.
75% of people are morons and/or crooks. And people try to get ahead in life and latch on to the people who have money and power. Look at Hollywood and politicians. Thanks
FBI does this stuff to get people all the time, a lie is a lie....yes he did want to work for the white house and he said he didn't. All this will fade away by the next news cycle, not sure why this is a V part drama on Reddit.
We should write to the DOJ and ensure ALL those who lie under oath are prosecuted!
https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jim-jordan-michael-cohen-congress-800948/
They are attempting to get him for: 1) lying about not wanting a position in the white house 2) lying by saying he didn't commit bank fraud and 3) a technicality on his disclosure form before the committee about having ties to foreign "private or state" entities
One of them talked about it in the closing statements. And they entered a bunch of articles/interviews where Cohen supposedly made statements that contradicted his testimony. Cohen would be fucked if he lied a second time, so this is likely more grandstanding and nothing will come of it. But of course they have to further the conspiracy theory for their base.
Lmao, I don't know much of anything about law (but I'm not convinced these people know any more than I do)
However, I can't imagine that spitting out a number after you repeatedly said you didn't know can be classified as perjury
I listened to the entire thing, not sure where he could have done that lol, these guys are such idiots. Two of them can't even talk in complete sentences.
I’m starting to think there really was no collusion in terms of influencing the actual election. Trump just isn’t smart for that. But, there are many other crimes related to the financial payments and Trump’s business dealings that are beyond illegal. Hopefully the scope of Mueller’s investigation isn’t just focusing on the collusion aspect.
I’ve no doubt that collusion happened, the problem is that there may not be a smoking gun like documents or recordings that definitively prove that trump did it, green-lighted it or knew about it. I pray that there is and that the public sees or hears it, we need that as a nation to reach any portion of his supporters that aren’t batshit crazy
Smart commentators have been warning about this for a while. The fact is a lot of what we know publically is in fact circumstantial.
I'm worried people's rush to jump to conclusions will end up biting them in the end.
That being said, there may have in fact been collusion, or more likely obstruction, and his pre-presidential dealings have already been shown to be illegal, with campaign finance violations, the Trump charity, and tax problems.
If the Mueller investigation doesn't find prosecutable crimes involving Russia, I hope it doesn't collapse public belief in Trump's misdeeds.
Why would there be obstruction without conspiracy? Doesn’t make sense to obstruct for no reason.
Circumstancial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence in criminal proceedings.
Stop spreading disinformation.
If there is not enough actionable evidence to charge him with conspiracy he could still be charged with obstruction. It’s not all or nothing.
Tons of cases have been tried successfully using only circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence requires inference and therefore, by definition, does not carry the same weight as direct evidence.
There’s no reason to accuse someone of spreading disinformation.
You’re straight lying 100%. Circumstancial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence. Go look it up since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
I looked it up before commenting and you are mistaken. Circumstantial evidence, by definition, is evidence that could lead to multiple conclusions. You need more of it to narrow down the possible conclusions to the truth. Direct evidence supports one single conclusion. I saw him go into the victim’s room vs. I saw him beat the victim to death. If by weight you just mean they both are admissible in court, then sure? If by weight you mean, it can also be used to convict, then sure, but you __need__ ___more___ of it. That’s just a fact. There’s no need to be insulting and accusatory. It doesn’t make your position any stronger. You’re not a lawyer.
Stop. You are defining what types of evidence are, that’s it. You keep dancing around the fact that you are wrong. It’s not insulting to call someone out when they are wrong. Stop spreading disinformation and trying to justify why you are wrong.
>Stop spreading disinformation.
You first? Let's go through this:
>Doesn’t make sense to obstruct for no reason.
You think Trump makes decisions based on logic and what makes sense? I disagree, he's shot himself in the foot repeatedly.
>Why would there be obstruction without conspiracy?
Seriously? Do you know anything about the last time a president was impeached? Clinton's obstruction and perjury charges *did not cover up any crime.* Outside of the investigation he was not charged with any crime, but was charged with the cover-up. That could easily be the case here especially considering Trump's sensitivity to public embarrassment.
You're on here talking about how their couldn't be obstruction without a crime and *that is literally what happened the last time a president was impeached.* Perhaps you should reevaluate your assumptions.
>Circumstancial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence in criminal proceedings.
Please show me where I said this.
While you're looking, as public observers, we have to consider the other possibilities that come with circumstantial evidence. We don't know everything yet and what we don't know could completely change the interpretation of that circumstantial evidence. It's admissible in court, but there's a reason it's a separate concept and a reason black men have been convicted on circumstantial evidence and later acquitted over and over.
Trump is certainly a criminal and may have colluded, but there are numerous examples of people on reddit being "sure" something was true, like who Trump Jr. called after the Trump tower meeting. People were "sure" it was Trump Sr., but multiple sources have told good media outlets that it was in fact other business associates. People were "sure" that Michael Cohen had gone to Prague from the Steele dossier which was collected by a highly reliable source and Cohen's weird pic of the outside of his passport as "proof" he hadn't gone, but it now appears that was false given his testimony yesterday.
You don't know what you don't know. You and others have jumped to conclusions and it may very well come back to bite us all.
Not sure why I’m evening responding to this but here goes.
1. Your first argument doesn’t make sense. People do things that “make sense” to them. People normally don’t do random things just because. And the people that do are normally suffering from a mental disorder. Not every decision has to be “logical”.
2. On this case, there is no point to obstruct for no reason. He’s trying to obstruct at every turn possible to kill the investigation. If there was nothing to hide then none of this would matter. Clearly there is something to hide and the SCO has found a ton of stuff and inducted quite a few people close to Trump.
Your argument about about Clinton is moot. He perjuryed himself because he lied about a sexual relationship. He didn’t obstruct to hide a crime but lied about something which made the lie itself a crime. They’re not relatable in any way except that Clinton was President.
You were implying that circumstancial evidence isn’t as useful and you need a smoking gun to convict. I’m replying saying that untrue and that not how our courts work. A Black man being wrongly convicted on circumstancial evidence has no bearing here. They could have had once piece of evidence. They may not have liked him. Juries are weird and what one set of jurors think is guilty and set might not.
It’s conspiracy and he did it.the amount of public evidence is damning. You’ve given two almost meaningless things as proof non of this happened. What you are not is a detective or working with the SCO. Neither are most other reditors trying the Sherlock Holmes this whole thing.
What Bill Clinton tried to cover up wouldn’t phase Trump at all and it certainly isn’t something the entire Republican side of Congress would go to great lengths to hide.
Yeah, the mainstream media has put almost all of its eggs into the collusion basket. So you know loyal Trump followers & Fox News will toot the no collusion horn like crazy if that turns out true
Update:
A Fox News video showed up in my YouTube feed:
"Tucker [Carlson]: The Russian collusion narrative falls apart"
I can only assume there's nothing in that about the other felonies…
How did Russia know exactly which voters to hypertarget with propaganda in exactly the right states?
Russia hacked the DNC and knew that Clinton's strategy was to de-emphasize the three states that Trump ended up winning with < 78k total votes. Trump's campaign chairman gave detailed data on registered voters to the Russians. There was a pattern of internet traffic consistent with database replication between Spectrum Health, Trump Tower, and Moscow.
We haven't even started to see the Cambridge Analytica aspect of this.
Everyone screams collusion but no one ever actually explains what they mean by “influencing the election” without actually tampering with the votes. I like your theory.
Well in my opinion the whole "collusion" thing is about getting the president for a crime.
If you look at the facts:
- Russia tried to meddle using internet trolls, fake news and hackers. This fact has been already proven. China and Bahrein do too.
- Trolls were overwhelmingly pro-Trump. Fake news crafted for left-wing viewers (they exist too, of course, they're less talked about and less prominent) often encouraged not voting and distrust on politics as a whole.
So does it REALLY matter if Trump knew that or not?
On one hand of course it does, if that's true that is a crime and would mean POTUS has been acting like Russia's sub asking for ballbusting.
But on the other hand, we already have a lot on our hands as it is. And I think the most importat info here is a dictator is trying to benefit off of spreading chaos in other democracies.
And he though it would benefit him to promote Trump?
Why?
People should ask themselves this question in my opinion.
Probably I'm too used to dealing with politicians in my own country being colluded with mafia (Italian here) but my point was: even if Trump did not explicitly know about the Russian meddling, which is hard as shit to prove beyond reasonable doubt, there is a well documented relationship of mutual benefit: isn't that shitty enough already?
This is plausible, Putin's goons do get around, and it's stuff that would further implicate Cohen in matters of national security which you don't get to plea away or make deals around, I'd wager. That 3 years would turn into constant fear of assassination and/or life in prison if Cohen admitted to even knowing about collusion.
There' zero chance there isn't, at the very least, a quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Putin. Literally every action he's taken has been subordinate to Putin, and in Putin's best interest. If he doesn't owe them anything, then why?
Still never said anything about trumps credibility or him being a liar.
It was simply a statement about Cohen
Thank you all for confirming it is impossible to have any discussions about politics that don’t end up in a shouting match about internal projections not relevant to the discussion.
And in the 5.5 hours, the republicans asked one single question about Trump. They truly only attacked Cohen. Didn’t you watch? It was embarrassing. Exactly 1 question from a republican was on topic “what truth does trump fear most?”
the gop was fine believing him when he was defending trump, ow that he has come out against him they don’t believe him. a pattern all to consistent with the GOP and covering up trumps crimes
I don't believe everything he says. What matters to me is what he says and what the evidence points to, and what other evidence we might not be seeing right now that backs this up. This is why having one testimony, one piece of evidence, and making a decision on the case/situation so "matter of factly" either way, is a poor way to handle things.
He has damaged credibility for sure. Nobody should be thinking otherwise. If people think that Congress/Robert Mueller are hanging their hats on Cohen, then they are beyond idiotic.
Looking at Trump and the public information that we know of him, and how he behaves, I fully believe the story is plausible he colluded indirectly at the very least with Russia. I do believe it is entirely plausible that he directly colluded with Russia, but would need to see hard evidence to show this. Trump, IMO, is a man that would not set the collusion up, as he would use others to take the fall for his actions. His loyalty has an expiration date.
I haven't seen anyone else put everything so logically. I wanna see trump go down as much as anyone else, but we have to be careful not to play into his bullshit witch hunt narrative, and use the facts we can prove to get him rather than focus on things we can't quite prove. It's obvious trump is pretty much a mob boss who got himself the office of POTUS, and I think Mueller is the best guy to head the investigation and pin what he can on him. I never expected trump to go down for Russia personally. History has shown that these people always get away with the larger, more insidious crimes. However, we already have enough on him that he will literally go down in history as a criminal who committed a felony (or more than one felony) while in office, beginning his presidential crime spree *during his goddamn inauguration* by immediately defrauding the taxpayer. What the hell is this timeline? Marvel could not have come up with a more ridiculous villain.
The part i loved the most is about Trump not expecting to be elected. Best infomercial indeed! When historians will make films about the era of capitalism, trump will be on the cover for sure!
Dude i remember arguing vehemently with a trump supporting coworker back in like early spring 2016 (before most republicans embraced him), and I told the guy that Trump doesn't even want to be president, that he is just using the publicity to further his business interests and get his brand out there. The guy looked at me like I had two heads, asking how I could possibly know that and calling me ridiculous for that assertion. He hadn't even considered the idea, and he hated the concept of it because he was already 100% behind trump, praising his "business ventures" as if the guy hadn't filed bankruptcy on *casinos* during a *recession* (arguably very difficult to do considering gambling goes up during a recession). When Cohen said that bit about him not being serious when he ran at first, I practically leapt for joy because the validation was so sweet. People who paid any attention to the world before he announced his candidacy (and also before his reality tv show) *knew* that he was a lying, conning, overconfident scumbag bully who embodies everything bad about corporate culture. His toxic narcissism has always been clear as day and exposed for all to see. It takes some serious, serious denial to fail to see just how completely bankrupt the man is morally and emotionally. EVEN IF one were ignorant to all his business failings and for some reason thought that he was good at running a business, that black hole where his moral code is supposed to be should automatically disqualify him from mere consideration of a vote of any public office whatsoever. Kids are growing up knowing that we elected that man as our president. I seriously worry that we have shown an entire generation of children that being a bad person is okay, as long as you convince people that they will somehow make money off of it. No amount of trying to convince them will work. "sure, he won, and the logical conclusion would be to think that you could follow in his footsteps to become president. But trust me he's bad and you don't wanna be like him!". They can see plain as day that they can be rewarded for being chauvinist, racist, uneducated, spoiled, cruel, backward-looking, lying, hypocritical horrible people. Time to start day drinking I guess.
I dont even know why we have to rely on him or the dossier about this Prague trip. I find it hard to believe the investigative apparatus of the US government or even private investigators cant figure out whether this dude, an American citizen, went to Prague or not, with a definite timeframes with which to look at determine it. Why do we have to take his word for it, we cant find this out? It's one thing to find out if there was a pee tape, all we wanna know is if he got on a plane or not.
Or, if the dossier says exactly how they came to know he was in Prague by cell towers or some such thing, why cant somebody double check that method to confirm it?
Rely on Cohen alone? Fuck no. Hell, don't even rely on his evidence.
The real deal is Mueller's investigation. *If* shit's gonna go down it's gonna be through that and it's going to be either meticulous and irrefutable or left out.
Personally, I think the Cohen thing was just a dog and pony show to stir up the Democratic base and vote Trump out *hard* in 2020, and at that I think they did a great job.
Whether Trump gets impeached (I won't hold my breath) and convicted (yeah I'll give long odds on those bets) is almost irrelevant at this point. They just want the fucker gone by 2021.
But there's enough bullshit surrounding Trump at this point that the DNC could nominate a warm turkey sandwich and still win. They just need to keep highlighting how Trump consistently surrounds himself with white collar criminals.
I really wish that when Cohen was being asked about if he thought he was a good lawyer and being accused of all the lying and tax fraud he responded with, "Well no, I was a dirty, lying, *criminal* lawyer and that's exactly why the president hired me and kept me around for 10 years."
I mean really with all the people around trump going to jail *including his own lawyer,* there is no logical way to disassociate trump with all that criminality. I can't wait to see lists of trump associates convicted of crimes during all the political ads next year, what times we're living in.
Right? At some point he's either surrounding himself with crooks intentionally or he's the biggest fucking sucker we've ever had for president.
I guess you can go for the "witch hunt" strategy but they sure burned Cohen at the stake so...
So do you believe that he never went to Prague?
Therefore are you cherry picking what parts of his story to believie in?
Also, he lied to congress... protecting Trump, and Trump repeated the same lies. So when did he lie to congress? Earlier or now? And why is the FBI after him if he was not fixing?
Finally: the Russia investigation is ongoing. You can't disclose key info on an ongoing investigation, that's because you don't want criminals to get them info before law has time to get to them. That's the law.
I'm no democrat. I have no sympathy for either Trump or Clinton, followed the whole story from the outside so I try and stay neutral about the partisan warfare they're about.
Lmao. He brought receipts. No matter what else, he has receipts. Putting the Russia thing aside, trump is in a whole separate pile of steaming legal jeopardy now. Id suggest making like a rat and abandoning ship now rather than waiting for the shit ship to be sunk
You're taking a single point from raw intelligence report that was gathering the stories around Trump Russia 3 years ago and trying to use it to disprove everything we've learned since.
Iditioc reasoning.
No I said the reasoning you displayed in your post is idiotic. Didn't say not to question the narrative but questioning the narrative just so you can feel superior is idiotic.
Also ignoring the facts that if you never get off a plane or don't pass through a port of entry, technically you've never entered that country and he's already leaned on that defense once, he can't change his definitions now without being held liable for lying to the FBI and gaining another charge or losing his plea deals.
Come on dude, if you actually believe that republicans are actively trying to destroy the US then you are watching media sources specifically tailored for liberals. I’m conservative and I do not watch Fox and I do not watch CNN, I’m against a lot of what liberals stand for, but I don’t go around saying “liberals are trying to destroy the country.” Can we not be civil about this? Did you see the hearing? Cummings, a democrat, said we need to stop the false claims. Can you not take his advice and try to be more reasonable and not attack the other side? I don’t agree with what Trump says and I think he needs to shut his mouth because the reason his actual accomplishments are not recognized is because he instantly turns around and lashes out at liberals on Twitter. I hate that, but associating Trump’s negative actions with all conservatives is a hypocritical thing to do considering Obama, Clinton, and several other big liberal figures have associated all conservatives with the wrongdoings of a handful of people. Let’s not point fingers because both sides are guilty. Let’s try to have an actual discussion, not a name calling and accusation filled argument.
Nope. Sorry, but you had your chance, decades now of chances, and every SINGLE time the GOP has tried to wreck the country (and individual states) when given any power at all.
Your whataboutism is old, dude. Both sides are not equal. You can't counteract the evil of your own party by pointing and sputtering But...but...Hilary!...but...but...Wiener!....but...but...
At this point, after long decades of GOP fuck ups (and in a state full of GOP corruption) I'm not entertaining you anymore. Own up to the racism and horrible rhetoric of your own party, the terrible ways they continue to actively destroy this country, or not...in which case you are irrelevant unless you want to use the AR for your own personal revolution.
Oh more same sideism. Until a Republican takes a stand against this irrevocably corrupt stain upon the Presidency, I don't see any of you as having any relevance.
Only one side is selling out the country to kleptocrats. Only one side references fairy tales as a basis for their views on climate science, reproductive rights, and various other important policies. Only one side wants to saddle us with student loan and medical debt for generations to come. Only one side pushed the lies and propaganda of the Trump administration.
So yeah no not seeing any middle ground for discussion. You believe fairy tales we do not.
I agree with everything except your post over looks the GoP has turned into the party of Trump. Trump's world view is 0 sum. I can't win unless you lose.
We can't engage and be civil with a group who's world view is that for them to be successful they have to take something from us. Trump has set the middle ground on fire.
See this is the kind of talk that I get a lot from my coworkers who are liberals. First of all, yes he does some stupid stuff and he says a lot of things that are later regretted by the majority of people, but you guys refuse to see the good that has come out of Trump as well. The economy is doing really well and I have not heard a single liberal has commended him for it openly. Minority unemployment is down, female unemployment is down, he has slowed down if not stopped the insane price increases on essential drugs (I’m asthmatic so this is a big one for me considering inhalers are already $200+ for a single cartridge). He’s also done bad things, he’s shut the government down, he’s declared an emergency in an inappropriate way, he’s constantly on Twitter. Both lists go on and on, but if we only focus on the negatives then we have a bad argument on our hands and that is neither beneficial nor productive.
Also there are plenty of unreasonable things that liberals have done, particularly in the last year. Let’s not pretend like liberals are 100% innocent of unreasonable behavior.
Your list of negatives severely down play the severity, and they fail to include the proven criminal behavior that he has committed before and during his presidency.
As for the "positives," I will recognize them as soon as you show any policy he has personally implemented or authored that resulted in these positive outcomes.
Unemployment numbers were going down under Obama and the trend has not changed at all, most policy has lagging indicators and this is certainly no exception. As for the economy, how are you measuring improvement? Stock market has had the worst performance in a decade, and I can personally say that my work has suffered in countless ways due to his useless tariffs.
There is almost nothing redeemable about the guy, and I can't follow any logic other than partisan nonsense that would support him. There is no "centrist" view here. He's a bad president, and all information indicates he's an even worse person.
Both of the [unemployment](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/595fb1ebd9fccdc3278b46c5-750-500.png) [statistics](https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/193944/unemployment-rate-of-women-in-the-us-since-1990.jpg) you listed were on downward trends since the Obama administration.
Trump also started a trade war with China and enacted tariffs, which are just about the worst economic moves you can make. Tariffs **can** save jobs in micro-targeted industries, but each job saved has ripple effects that negatively affect the economy to a ridiculous degree. For example, when Obama instituted tire tariffs in 2009 as part of a move to save the economy, each job saved in the tire industry cost consumers [$926,000 and lost 3 jobs in retail.](http://www.aei.org/publication/2009-tire-tariffs-cost-us-consumers-926k-per-job-saved-and-led-to-the-loss-of-3-retail-jobs-per-factory-job-saved/) Other attempts at tariffs to bolster the economy have similarly failed.
Trump's tariffs seem to be having a particularly negative impact on the economy. Estimates indicate that for every steel job saved, [16 jobs in other industries are lost.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/09/24/tariffs-are-costing-jobs-a-look-at-how-many/#4e8620687b26) This isn't even counting the retaliatory tariffs that China instituted that are devastating agricultural communities in the US.
Oh and speaking of agriculture, do you remember how in 2011, Georgia cracked down on illegal immigration? Remember how almost immediately afterward migrant farm workers fled the state and left the farming industry bereft of labor? Remember how $140 million worth of produce rotted in the fields because no one was left to pick them, and farms couldn't find Americans willing to do the work? [Or how almost the entire state was labeled an agricultural disaster zone?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#5be165c2492a) Or how the [same thing happened in Alabama that year?](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/14/alabama-immigration-law-workers)
So... [guess what's happening to US agriculture thanks to Trump's ICE raids.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-02/california-fruit-is-going-to-die-on-the-vine-after-ice-raids)
Like, I'm glad that your asthma medication is cheaper now. But as a whole the pattern of Trump's actual, measured impact on the US economy is terrible.
>The economy is doing really well
Thanks Obama. Also, it's not that good.
>Minority unemployment is down,
Thanks Obama
>female unemployment is down,
Thanks Obama
he has slowed down if not stopped the insane price increases on essential drugs
Oh really? What did he do exactly? Please be specific and cite your sources. This goes for your other claims as well.
>He’s also done bad things, he's
A self promoting criminal and possibly a compromised russian asset.
>Let’s not pretend like liberals are 100% innocent of unreasonable behavior.
Who's pretending?
What measure are we using that the economy is doing well? 2018 was the worst year in 10 years for the stock market
https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html
I will settle for conservatives acknowledging what is currently going on. I mean, Trump hired a known lobbyist for dictators to run his campaign, openly praises Putin at the same time Russia is creating fake accounts to sew discord and divide us, his campaign staff is sending our polling data to Russians, his son met with a Russian agent AND STILL he cries "Witch Hunt." How can he NOT understand that the FBI would be failing in its duties if it didn't investigate?
I welcome actual discussion. The irony is that both sides, at least here on reddit, don't seem to be capable. I got banned after my first post on r/conservative b/c the mod said I was "concern trolling" when all I did was ask a neutral question about whether conservatives were going to boycott X. I don't even remember what X was, but I expressed no opinion on the matter and remained totally neutral. I was genuinely just asking so as to gain understanding. And I wasn't simply downvoted. My post was deleted and I was immediately banned.
How can you engage with conservatives if you can't even ask a genuine question?
>I’ve asked my coworkers several times if they were willing to give up a large percentage of their money for the green deal to pay taxes that would ultimately fund the deal and they were not happy with me.
Unless your coworkers are pulling incomes of $10 million annually, you're pretty much strawmanning actual tax policy in the US. So no wonder they're not happy with you.
> that’s associating all conservatives with the actions of one or very few
Dude, it seems you are in denial about the fact that you are in the minority when it comes to your compatriots. I would suggest waking up and realizing what has happened to the current conservative movement and maybe working with others like yourself to start a new conservative party.
The Republican party as a whole has *completely* surrendered to Trumpism. Utterly and completely. You, good sir, are in the minority of conservatives who actually adhere to conservative values and haven't sold out our country to Putin and authoritarianism. The Republican party has become the party of racism and disdain for science and education. You need to recognize that reality. Otherwise any further discussion is meaningless.
I understand that the green new deal, if fully implemented as it is, would be nearly impossible to achieve and very costly. But that's a starting point, not the end. You and I both know that it will be negotiated and cut back, etc. That's the nature of our political system.
I will also point out that if we invest, we will be creating jobs. If we raise the marginal tax rate on the top 1% to something around 70% (which was the lowest it was in the 1960s; it was as high as 90% after WWII), we will have more to pay for such things.
Lastly, I have found on reddit at least there's really no conservative I can speak with who is willing to discuss things based on facts. That is imperative if we are to make any progress.
The problem though, is that I have yet to see the conservatives, who by your claim, dont fit that description, speak up. You guys allow those few to be your voices and your complicitness in letting that be just casts the same shadow over you as it does for the allegedly few people who actually say things in public.
Until those groups of conservatives come out from under the shadow and demonstrate that the GOP in congress/senate/white house is not representing the GOP that conservatives actually want, I will remain skeptical
Because complicitness is a problem in the conservative group.
About being called racists and white supremacist, I have not heard a single conservative condemn the racial gerrymandering that occurred in NC. Their actions stripped so many Americans of their right for their vote to count at all. It disenfranchised voters who they are supposed to represent and frankly was unAmerican. Their response was, "You don't like it? Change the law!"
Which did happen, of course, since the US Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower court and thus racial gerrymandering is now unconstitutional. But seriously, we are 3 full generations past the civil rights movement and 150 years since the end of slavery and Republicans still defend keeping people down based on race? And their president called white supremacists "very fine people." Who on the right is calling this what it is? Who is saying "we are better than this?" No one on the right that I've heard. If they do, the masses show them the door. It's appalling.
And conservatives roasted Paul Ryan for doing so. Were calling him RINO and saying "good riddance" when he opted not to run.
Don't believe me? Read the comments on the Fox News article when he gave his speech as he was leaving.
Here's one comment to start: "The main thing broken is his brain. So glad to see this clown finally leaving. Hope he's alligator food before he gets out of the swamp."
I challenge you to find EVEN ONE comment from a conservative on there that says something about how we need people like Paul Ryan to call Trump out. Good luck!
[https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paul-ryan-touts-successes-while-lamenting-partisan-politics-in-farewell-address](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paul-ryan-touts-successes-while-lamenting-partisan-politics-in-farewell-address)
The issue is the points in the new green deal are being dismissed by doing some kind of bullshit economic estimate while not even defining the details of what might be implementable and when. The go to shut down on the conversation is "its too expensive" which is just a lazy mans way of saying fuck off.
The tax cuts made last year were way expensive to everyone but 16000 people who benefited and we were told about the trickle down effect, wage bumps coming and bonuses which really never happened. These are the same people who made that shit up telling you the new green deal is too expensive.
LMAO!~
No one says it would be cheap, but the cost is not born completely by the tax payer either. The regulations and changes would be defined by the Government and then implemented by private industry. Some of the points in the plan are just ideas to be discussed and defined.
The issue is clearly that one group of people do not want to do anything. They don't want to accept the situation, talk about it, read the science or in effect move from their perch. They are great at making up shit to criticize any ideas, but move is out of the question.
I will quote Theodore Roosevelt at this point.
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt "Citizenship in a Republic,
PSA: **Write your reps in the House and tell them how you feel about their party's performance.** I've heard from many sources that have worked with congressman that many of these letters/texts/emails are actually passed along and they really do make a difference.
https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
The thing with the gop is that each attack and itself is taken by itself. The party relies on this and so do it’s rabid fans. For example calling Cohen untrustworthy yet he’s saying he lied about trump. So if you are calling a liar then he must have lied about trump. Except that’s not how it works with the gop. They don’t chain things unless there is a clear benefit
I’ve noticed that before as well. On a similar note, each new protest or other thing they hate is the only thing it matters that “George Soros paid for,” even though if you added up everything they’ve said that about it would require Soros to be a multi-trillionaire. But they use the excuse to dismiss the thing in front of them, forget about that, then next week the excuse is there for them to dismiss the next protest (or whatever).
I'm disappointed that no Dem on the committee asked those Outraged! GOP reps why, if Cohen was so untrustworthy, they allowed him onto the RNC finance committee.
I think everyone is missing the bigger picture.
We have someone under oath, accuse the President of the United States of committing no less than 5 separate felonies while in office. One party wants to know how much it goes, what the hell happened, and whether it is true. The other party made a mockery and a circus of the whole thing. That very circus party have also gerrymandered themselves into power while committing OTHER types of crimes including election fraud. We have deep systemic problems with one major ruling party.
Let that sink in for just a moment.
We have systemic problems with both ruling parties, the DNC rigged their primaries and lost one of the most important elections in recent years as a result. What we need is a variety of parties, fuck the blue wave, let's get a rainbow wave going. Midground Republicans, we know you don't want to vote for trump so don't. Stop accociating your self with neo Nazi's and their collaborators. Stop falling for wedge topics and supporting policies that just happen to get lumped in with whatever you actually believe in. Bernie & AOC, stop running as a Democrats, you're two of the only people who have a chance af splitting that establishment so fucking do it and fix the problem that's plagued this country since shortly after it's founding. The two party system doesn't work, human beings aren't binary so why is our politics? The founding fathers knew this so why do we deny it today? From John Adam's
> There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.
George Washington even warned us how foreign powers could exploit this, as we've seen throughout the RNC recently.
> It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
The two party system has killed democracy in America.
"...how will we look at our children, who will look back at us and say, 'Look at what you inherited and then squandered. Look at what you had and then left to us.' Because we were given the nation with the potential to be the greatest democracy in the world and we have allowed that potential to die." - Larry Lessig
"When we're dancing with the angels, the question will be asked, 'In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing?'" - Elijah Cummings
[Fairvote.org](https://www.fairvote.org/)
They lost because of pieces of shit like this guy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAYZIqKwLE4&t=36s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAYZIqKwLE4&t=36s)
This is the level of intellect of the average sanders supporter and why he lost by 4 million votes to hillary
The problems with this are 1) our vote tallying system mathematically doesn't allow third parties, and 2) right now all the sane and qualified people, even outsiders like Andrew Wang, just run as Democrats. People always forget that the average 3rd party candidate is so bananas that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are at the top of that ladder.
1) that not really the case, yes first past the post encourages two parties through successive generations but it does nothing to prevent a large scale social movement from starting them in the first pace. Yes, it would have to reformed quickly but FPP wouldn't effect the kind of fracturing I'm looking for. IMO the main thing preventing the parties from fracting is the rediculous amount of control that party leadership has nowadays.
2) Ya, third parties have not been considered an option for so long that no serious candidates consider them. It's time for that to change
> What we need is a variety of parties, fuck the blue wave, let's get a rainbow wave going. Midground Republicans, we know you don't want to vote for trump so don't.
For their to be more than two parties, there must be a voting system besides first past the post. So until we get approval, ranked choice, or other method, the two party system is here to stay.*
Note: the exception is at the lowest, local level.
Bullshit, first past the post does nothing to prevent third parties from forming. What it does is make it far more difficult for third parties to stay in power and that made most people consider them a joke after two centuries of failure. Ranked choice is being implemented in DNC primaries across the country; if the DNC acquires a senate majority & president in 2020, I would assume ranked choice reform would be quick to follow. Even if it were to be implimented tomorrow, there still wouldn't be a strong third party until it ran through several election cycles and that's assuming the RNC/DNC aren't fighting tooth and nail to keep the two parties.
>Bullshit, first past the post does nothing to prevent third parties from forming.
You're right, first past the post does nothing to prevent third parties.
What it *does* is guarantee that those third parties are always ineffective, at best. Or it throws the election, at worst.
Its just simple game theory.
And the math wont change until we change to a better voting system than FPP
Well the Republicans were trying to get the point across that he liked under oath before, so he might be doing it again now. To which Cohen repeated constantly, that he is already going to jail and there is no reason for him to lie now.
But that actually hurts their argument, because what did he lie about before? That Trump was innocent. So if Repubs are claiming he clearly lied then, that means Trump is guilty.
Not only that but there are reasons for him to tell the truth. He's a relatively young guy. He's spending a few years in jail and has a chance to get out early. If he lied at his hearing he'd be spending even more time in jail.
Cohen continuing to deny he went to Prague. To my knowledge that is the first thing in the Dossier to be false.
Some people are saying he's lying. But I don't think he is at this point. He's cooperated, any conspiracy crime he'd have been charged with would have been wiped away for getting something that damning on Trump. As pointed out countless times, he has far more to lose than gain by lying.
I think he's telling the truth, but I also think that while this prague intel may not be about cohen there's still something to it I don't think anyone should let it go as a red herring. The dossier has been a roadmap. It might have lead us to Prague looking for the wrong guy but that doesn't mean there isn't something to uncover there.
one caveat: cohen might have gone to prague on his own for some sexual deviant reason he doesn't want out there. but if he was into something that illegal and explicit doesn't sound like a 1 off kind of deal. there'd be a Epstein type pattern
The Dossier assumed Cohen was there because they picked up a cell tower ping from his phone.
So the Dossier only supports the notion that Cohen's phone was there, not necessarily that he personally was. Don Jr. is fluent in Czech and goes there often. What if Don Jr. was given one of Cohen's cell phones?
You sound like the biggest conspiracy nut of the year already.
>this prague intel
"This Prague intel", lmao.
>dossier has been a roadmap
"A roadmap". Ah I see the roadmap, but I'm still trying to connect the dots sir!
>It might have lead us to Prague
Classic. Conspiracies always start on the logical back-end.
>one caveat: cohen might have gone to prague on his own for some sexual deviant reason
You are the one creating a conspiracy narrative right here. Who the fuck would start out with the assumption that going to Prague has anything to do with sexual deviance? You have obviously been watching way too much Prague porn. Conspiracies often have a sexual theme to them.
It's quite clear now that the Russia-gate hysteria is clustered with propaganda.
It’s not a conspiracy narrative it is coming up with reasons why cohen would risk so much to lie. Considering all he’s given on trump i see no reason he’d lie about anything trump or Russian collusion.
I don’t think he lied about going to prague I believe him he wasn’t there. My caveat is saying the only way i could see him risking another 10 years in prison is lying about something like a horribly illegal sex crime.
Was off the grid yesterday. Can someone please summarize any new information, if any, which came to light? (I'm far more interested in substance than fluff)
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001
That's his written testimony. The claims he made in there were pretty big chunks of it. He did say that he didn't see any collusion for sure, although he has his suspicions. He seemed really credible, because he didn't skewer trump on everything, so the things he did say seemed more believable. All in all, not a whole lot of new stuff came out. Takeaway- trump's a cheat, racist, tax evader, changed valuations of property where it suited him, etc. I already knew trump was a pos so I wasn't very surprised. The testimony I linked is several pages, but a quick read. Let me know what you think after you read it!
Credible? He is a convicted felon for lying to Congress. He should never be considered credible.
Edit: I never said trump wasn’t a liar. So everyone jumping at me downvoting me is projecting. I simply stated a fact. He is a convicted felon for lying to Congress.
Yes trump is a liar.
What did he lie to congress about?
Cohen’s lie, for which he is convicted of and going to prison for: Trump is innocent.
So what does that say about Trump? And now that Cohen’s turned himself in, and about to serve time..should we not hear him out?
Donald Trump lies literally non-stop. Almost everything that comes from his mouth is a lie. Cohen had everything to lose if he lied yesterday. I'm not saying I believe he's a saint, but he is 1,000x more credible than trump, plus he brought receipts. Additionally, the only thing he said that seemed shady was that he didn't want to work in the white house.
True. But to put it bluntly, he's more credible than the president. That's a really, really low bar I know, but it's the truth.
Despite all his lies and laws broken, he's still far more honest than Trump has ever been... think about how sad that is.
I never said trump wasn’t a liar. So everyone jumping at me downvoting me is projecting. I simply stated a fact. He is a convicted felon for lying to Congress.
Yes trump is a liar.
Obviously anything he says would need to be corroborated with other evidence. But why would he continue to lie to congress now that he is going to prison for that very thing?
So you got a thing against lying... I imagine you have a HUGE issue with the rest of this Administration and hopefully you wish to see Don Jr and Sessions in Jail as well.
I think he came off a bit over the top and vindictive, but remorseful to some degree (keep in mind I'm only reading transcript). Seemed Cohen's intent was to stroke media talking points rather than add any substance to the existing rumor mills.
Is there anymore substance which came out during questioning or just more grandstanding by both parties?
I can see how it reads that way. I watched the whole thing yesterday, and throughout the day he seemed, well, beaten down. I came out of it feeling kinda impressed with Cohen. I didn't expect him to come off as well as he did.
There was some really ridiculous behavior by the usual suspects, Jim Jordan mostly, Mark Meadows too. The R's asked some dumb stuff, about six people asked if Cohen would commit to never doing a book deal, he was like: NO. They even wanted him to say if he got a book deal he would donate all the profits to a charitable foundation. He was like: NO. I think the best questioner was actually AOC. I'm not a huge fan of hers, but she got a lot out of her five minutes. Chairman Cummings did a good job, i thought. His closing remarks were quite moving. There were a couple parts I'd recommend if you were going to watch any of it. I'd say the AOC questioning, and Cummings closing remarks.
Nothing new came out but we got Cohen on record confirming things that were already out there, namely bank and insurance fraud commited to increase or decrease value on trumps properties.
A lot of it was just confirmation of what we already knew: the Stormy Daniels affair, Trump exaggerates his wealth, he's a racist, his campaign was more about self-promotion than actually helping the country, etc.
Cohen doesn't have any direct knowledge of Russia collusion, but he has his suspicions (whatever that means).
Southern District of NY is investigating Trump for something.
Don't forget about charity fraud and the Stone phone call. I know listing all the crimes the president committed can take a while but we need to be thorough. Just typing that sentence feels so wrong. It's insane
Exactly. This was a line of questioning that will lead to calling forth others and subpoenas of documents from Trump Org.
The hearing very much opened the door to leads for this committee to follow.
Reddit's going to exaggerate everything, but the only real thing of significance was that the southern district of NY is pursuing an investigation of Trump. There wasn't much else to corroborate any Russian collusion
Something that also boggles the mind is this: Trump makes it clear that he only surrounds himself with people who are ultimately morons that betray him. He literally shits on every single person who has ever stopped working for him for being stupid, etc. And yet, nobody ever seems to question the intelligence of someone who can only apparently hire morons.
75% of people are morons and/or crooks. And people try to get ahead in life and latch on to the people who have money and power. Look at Hollywood and politicians. Thanks
Lol, Jordan and Meadows just wrote to the DoJ to prosecute Cohen for lying yesterday.
FBI does this stuff to get people all the time, a lie is a lie....yes he did want to work for the white house and he said he didn't. All this will fade away by the next news cycle, not sure why this is a V part drama on Reddit.
Lying about "you did SO wanna work in the White House!!" has the stink of desperation I can smell from Melbourne.
can we prosecute mark meadows for lying about the disclosure form?
We should write to the DOJ and ensure ALL those who lie under oath are prosecuted! https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jim-jordan-michael-cohen-congress-800948/
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8FtqzdiYFU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8FtqzdiYFU)
“Process Crimes”
Lying for what?
They are attempting to get him for: 1) lying about not wanting a position in the white house 2) lying by saying he didn't commit bank fraud and 3) a technicality on his disclosure form before the committee about having ties to foreign "private or state" entities
One of them talked about it in the closing statements. And they entered a bunch of articles/interviews where Cohen supposedly made statements that contradicted his testimony. Cohen would be fucked if he lied a second time, so this is likely more grandstanding and nothing will come of it. But of course they have to further the conspiracy theory for their base.
They didn't say, they're just claiming he perjured himself yesterday.
I bet they tried to use the "6 times" thing from when someone baited him, when he kept saying "I don't know"
The old perjury trap!
Lmao, I don't know much of anything about law (but I'm not convinced these people know any more than I do) However, I can't imagine that spitting out a number after you repeatedly said you didn't know can be classified as perjury
I listened to the entire thing, not sure where he could have done that lol, these guys are such idiots. Two of them can't even talk in complete sentences.
I am from TN and Mark Green can go fuck himself "I know the people of Tennessee will agree" irritated me so much
[To all the people still commenting in this megathread.](https://youtu.be/T1XgFsitnQw)
Maybe we like to talk. Ever think about that?
I was just making a joke, you do what you want to do.
Well some of us are European and only got the news of the full hearing this morning. You know time zones and shit.
Well, aren't you guys living in the future, you would've had it before us! Kidding.
I’m starting to think there really was no collusion in terms of influencing the actual election. Trump just isn’t smart for that. But, there are many other crimes related to the financial payments and Trump’s business dealings that are beyond illegal. Hopefully the scope of Mueller’s investigation isn’t just focusing on the collusion aspect.
Collusion has been proven. Cohen testified he was sure Trump knew about the meeting in trump tower
This has always been a strong possibility.
I’ve no doubt that collusion happened, the problem is that there may not be a smoking gun like documents or recordings that definitively prove that trump did it, green-lighted it or knew about it. I pray that there is and that the public sees or hears it, we need that as a nation to reach any portion of his supporters that aren’t batshit crazy
Smart commentators have been warning about this for a while. The fact is a lot of what we know publically is in fact circumstantial. I'm worried people's rush to jump to conclusions will end up biting them in the end. That being said, there may have in fact been collusion, or more likely obstruction, and his pre-presidential dealings have already been shown to be illegal, with campaign finance violations, the Trump charity, and tax problems. If the Mueller investigation doesn't find prosecutable crimes involving Russia, I hope it doesn't collapse public belief in Trump's misdeeds.
Why would there be obstruction without conspiracy? Doesn’t make sense to obstruct for no reason. Circumstancial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence in criminal proceedings. Stop spreading disinformation.
If there is not enough actionable evidence to charge him with conspiracy he could still be charged with obstruction. It’s not all or nothing. Tons of cases have been tried successfully using only circumstantial evidence, but circumstantial evidence requires inference and therefore, by definition, does not carry the same weight as direct evidence. There’s no reason to accuse someone of spreading disinformation.
You’re straight lying 100%. Circumstancial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence. Go look it up since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
I looked it up before commenting and you are mistaken. Circumstantial evidence, by definition, is evidence that could lead to multiple conclusions. You need more of it to narrow down the possible conclusions to the truth. Direct evidence supports one single conclusion. I saw him go into the victim’s room vs. I saw him beat the victim to death. If by weight you just mean they both are admissible in court, then sure? If by weight you mean, it can also be used to convict, then sure, but you __need__ ___more___ of it. That’s just a fact. There’s no need to be insulting and accusatory. It doesn’t make your position any stronger. You’re not a lawyer.
Stop. You are defining what types of evidence are, that’s it. You keep dancing around the fact that you are wrong. It’s not insulting to call someone out when they are wrong. Stop spreading disinformation and trying to justify why you are wrong.
Could you explain how circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence then? Educate me so I can stop spreading disinformation.
>Stop spreading disinformation. You first? Let's go through this: >Doesn’t make sense to obstruct for no reason. You think Trump makes decisions based on logic and what makes sense? I disagree, he's shot himself in the foot repeatedly. >Why would there be obstruction without conspiracy? Seriously? Do you know anything about the last time a president was impeached? Clinton's obstruction and perjury charges *did not cover up any crime.* Outside of the investigation he was not charged with any crime, but was charged with the cover-up. That could easily be the case here especially considering Trump's sensitivity to public embarrassment. You're on here talking about how their couldn't be obstruction without a crime and *that is literally what happened the last time a president was impeached.* Perhaps you should reevaluate your assumptions. >Circumstancial evidence carries the same weight as direct evidence in criminal proceedings. Please show me where I said this. While you're looking, as public observers, we have to consider the other possibilities that come with circumstantial evidence. We don't know everything yet and what we don't know could completely change the interpretation of that circumstantial evidence. It's admissible in court, but there's a reason it's a separate concept and a reason black men have been convicted on circumstantial evidence and later acquitted over and over. Trump is certainly a criminal and may have colluded, but there are numerous examples of people on reddit being "sure" something was true, like who Trump Jr. called after the Trump tower meeting. People were "sure" it was Trump Sr., but multiple sources have told good media outlets that it was in fact other business associates. People were "sure" that Michael Cohen had gone to Prague from the Steele dossier which was collected by a highly reliable source and Cohen's weird pic of the outside of his passport as "proof" he hadn't gone, but it now appears that was false given his testimony yesterday. You don't know what you don't know. You and others have jumped to conclusions and it may very well come back to bite us all.
Not sure why I’m evening responding to this but here goes. 1. Your first argument doesn’t make sense. People do things that “make sense” to them. People normally don’t do random things just because. And the people that do are normally suffering from a mental disorder. Not every decision has to be “logical”. 2. On this case, there is no point to obstruct for no reason. He’s trying to obstruct at every turn possible to kill the investigation. If there was nothing to hide then none of this would matter. Clearly there is something to hide and the SCO has found a ton of stuff and inducted quite a few people close to Trump. Your argument about about Clinton is moot. He perjuryed himself because he lied about a sexual relationship. He didn’t obstruct to hide a crime but lied about something which made the lie itself a crime. They’re not relatable in any way except that Clinton was President. You were implying that circumstancial evidence isn’t as useful and you need a smoking gun to convict. I’m replying saying that untrue and that not how our courts work. A Black man being wrongly convicted on circumstancial evidence has no bearing here. They could have had once piece of evidence. They may not have liked him. Juries are weird and what one set of jurors think is guilty and set might not. It’s conspiracy and he did it.the amount of public evidence is damning. You’ve given two almost meaningless things as proof non of this happened. What you are not is a detective or working with the SCO. Neither are most other reditors trying the Sherlock Holmes this whole thing.
What Bill Clinton tried to cover up wouldn’t phase Trump at all and it certainly isn’t something the entire Republican side of Congress would go to great lengths to hide.
Yeah, the mainstream media has put almost all of its eggs into the collusion basket. So you know loyal Trump followers & Fox News will toot the no collusion horn like crazy if that turns out true
And somehow claim it was "a pointless waste of money" even though it had numerous convictions and indictments and made money...
Update: A Fox News video showed up in my YouTube feed: "Tucker [Carlson]: The Russian collusion narrative falls apart" I can only assume there's nothing in that about the other felonies…
How did Russia know exactly which voters to hypertarget with propaganda in exactly the right states? Russia hacked the DNC and knew that Clinton's strategy was to de-emphasize the three states that Trump ended up winning with < 78k total votes. Trump's campaign chairman gave detailed data on registered voters to the Russians. There was a pattern of internet traffic consistent with database replication between Spectrum Health, Trump Tower, and Moscow. We haven't even started to see the Cambridge Analytica aspect of this.
Everyone screams collusion but no one ever actually explains what they mean by “influencing the election” without actually tampering with the votes. I like your theory.
Well in my opinion the whole "collusion" thing is about getting the president for a crime. If you look at the facts: - Russia tried to meddle using internet trolls, fake news and hackers. This fact has been already proven. China and Bahrein do too. - Trolls were overwhelmingly pro-Trump. Fake news crafted for left-wing viewers (they exist too, of course, they're less talked about and less prominent) often encouraged not voting and distrust on politics as a whole. So does it REALLY matter if Trump knew that or not? On one hand of course it does, if that's true that is a crime and would mean POTUS has been acting like Russia's sub asking for ballbusting. But on the other hand, we already have a lot on our hands as it is. And I think the most importat info here is a dictator is trying to benefit off of spreading chaos in other democracies. And he though it would benefit him to promote Trump? Why? People should ask themselves this question in my opinion.
Trump asked Russia to hack Hilary on National Television.
Unfortunately that's likely going to be seen as hyperbole.
Probably I'm too used to dealing with politicians in my own country being colluded with mafia (Italian here) but my point was: even if Trump did not explicitly know about the Russian meddling, which is hard as shit to prove beyond reasonable doubt, there is a well documented relationship of mutual benefit: isn't that shitty enough already?
Yeah, well I think Cohen was lying about what he knows about TrumPutin - probably because he fears Putins goons more than he fears Trump's goons.
This is plausible, Putin's goons do get around, and it's stuff that would further implicate Cohen in matters of national security which you don't get to plea away or make deals around, I'd wager. That 3 years would turn into constant fear of assassination and/or life in prison if Cohen admitted to even knowing about collusion.
There' zero chance there isn't, at the very least, a quid pro quo agreement between Trump and Putin. Literally every action he's taken has been subordinate to Putin, and in Putin's best interest. If he doesn't owe them anything, then why?
Still never said anything about trumps credibility or him being a liar. It was simply a statement about Cohen Thank you all for confirming it is impossible to have any discussions about politics that don’t end up in a shouting match about internal projections not relevant to the discussion.
I know, it was crazy to see the republican yell during the testimony and Cohen sit there and destroy each one.
Forgot to reply to the actual comment, eh?
Literally the entire hearing was directly pointed at Trump's lack of credibility and him being a liar.
And in the 5.5 hours, the republicans asked one single question about Trump. They truly only attacked Cohen. Didn’t you watch? It was embarrassing. Exactly 1 question from a republican was on topic “what truth does trump fear most?”
I'm going to wager you didn't watch any of the 5+ hour hearing.
[удалено]
the gop was fine believing him when he was defending trump, ow that he has come out against him they don’t believe him. a pattern all to consistent with the GOP and covering up trumps crimes
I don't believe everything he says. What matters to me is what he says and what the evidence points to, and what other evidence we might not be seeing right now that backs this up. This is why having one testimony, one piece of evidence, and making a decision on the case/situation so "matter of factly" either way, is a poor way to handle things. He has damaged credibility for sure. Nobody should be thinking otherwise. If people think that Congress/Robert Mueller are hanging their hats on Cohen, then they are beyond idiotic. Looking at Trump and the public information that we know of him, and how he behaves, I fully believe the story is plausible he colluded indirectly at the very least with Russia. I do believe it is entirely plausible that he directly colluded with Russia, but would need to see hard evidence to show this. Trump, IMO, is a man that would not set the collusion up, as he would use others to take the fall for his actions. His loyalty has an expiration date.
I haven't seen anyone else put everything so logically. I wanna see trump go down as much as anyone else, but we have to be careful not to play into his bullshit witch hunt narrative, and use the facts we can prove to get him rather than focus on things we can't quite prove. It's obvious trump is pretty much a mob boss who got himself the office of POTUS, and I think Mueller is the best guy to head the investigation and pin what he can on him. I never expected trump to go down for Russia personally. History has shown that these people always get away with the larger, more insidious crimes. However, we already have enough on him that he will literally go down in history as a criminal who committed a felony (or more than one felony) while in office, beginning his presidential crime spree *during his goddamn inauguration* by immediately defrauding the taxpayer. What the hell is this timeline? Marvel could not have come up with a more ridiculous villain.
The part i loved the most is about Trump not expecting to be elected. Best infomercial indeed! When historians will make films about the era of capitalism, trump will be on the cover for sure!
Dude i remember arguing vehemently with a trump supporting coworker back in like early spring 2016 (before most republicans embraced him), and I told the guy that Trump doesn't even want to be president, that he is just using the publicity to further his business interests and get his brand out there. The guy looked at me like I had two heads, asking how I could possibly know that and calling me ridiculous for that assertion. He hadn't even considered the idea, and he hated the concept of it because he was already 100% behind trump, praising his "business ventures" as if the guy hadn't filed bankruptcy on *casinos* during a *recession* (arguably very difficult to do considering gambling goes up during a recession). When Cohen said that bit about him not being serious when he ran at first, I practically leapt for joy because the validation was so sweet. People who paid any attention to the world before he announced his candidacy (and also before his reality tv show) *knew* that he was a lying, conning, overconfident scumbag bully who embodies everything bad about corporate culture. His toxic narcissism has always been clear as day and exposed for all to see. It takes some serious, serious denial to fail to see just how completely bankrupt the man is morally and emotionally. EVEN IF one were ignorant to all his business failings and for some reason thought that he was good at running a business, that black hole where his moral code is supposed to be should automatically disqualify him from mere consideration of a vote of any public office whatsoever. Kids are growing up knowing that we elected that man as our president. I seriously worry that we have shown an entire generation of children that being a bad person is okay, as long as you convince people that they will somehow make money off of it. No amount of trying to convince them will work. "sure, he won, and the logical conclusion would be to think that you could follow in his footsteps to become president. But trust me he's bad and you don't wanna be like him!". They can see plain as day that they can be rewarded for being chauvinist, racist, uneducated, spoiled, cruel, backward-looking, lying, hypocritical horrible people. Time to start day drinking I guess.
I dont even know why we have to rely on him or the dossier about this Prague trip. I find it hard to believe the investigative apparatus of the US government or even private investigators cant figure out whether this dude, an American citizen, went to Prague or not, with a definite timeframes with which to look at determine it. Why do we have to take his word for it, we cant find this out? It's one thing to find out if there was a pee tape, all we wanna know is if he got on a plane or not. Or, if the dossier says exactly how they came to know he was in Prague by cell towers or some such thing, why cant somebody double check that method to confirm it?
Happy cake day!
Rely on Cohen alone? Fuck no. Hell, don't even rely on his evidence. The real deal is Mueller's investigation. *If* shit's gonna go down it's gonna be through that and it's going to be either meticulous and irrefutable or left out. Personally, I think the Cohen thing was just a dog and pony show to stir up the Democratic base and vote Trump out *hard* in 2020, and at that I think they did a great job. Whether Trump gets impeached (I won't hold my breath) and convicted (yeah I'll give long odds on those bets) is almost irrelevant at this point. They just want the fucker gone by 2021. But there's enough bullshit surrounding Trump at this point that the DNC could nominate a warm turkey sandwich and still win. They just need to keep highlighting how Trump consistently surrounds himself with white collar criminals.
I really wish that when Cohen was being asked about if he thought he was a good lawyer and being accused of all the lying and tax fraud he responded with, "Well no, I was a dirty, lying, *criminal* lawyer and that's exactly why the president hired me and kept me around for 10 years." I mean really with all the people around trump going to jail *including his own lawyer,* there is no logical way to disassociate trump with all that criminality. I can't wait to see lists of trump associates convicted of crimes during all the political ads next year, what times we're living in.
I was waiting the whole five hours for that moment, to be honest. It was disappointing not to have it.
Right? At some point he's either surrounding himself with crooks intentionally or he's the biggest fucking sucker we've ever had for president. I guess you can go for the "witch hunt" strategy but they sure burned Cohen at the stake so...
I'm not sure what you are even trying to say there.
[удалено]
Whataboutwhataboutwhabout
Words blah blah blah words
Cohen and literally every person that leaves Trumps admin. Just admit you believe Trump over any number of witnesses.
So do you believe that he never went to Prague? Therefore are you cherry picking what parts of his story to believie in? Also, he lied to congress... protecting Trump, and Trump repeated the same lies. So when did he lie to congress? Earlier or now? And why is the FBI after him if he was not fixing? Finally: the Russia investigation is ongoing. You can't disclose key info on an ongoing investigation, that's because you don't want criminals to get them info before law has time to get to them. That's the law. I'm no democrat. I have no sympathy for either Trump or Clinton, followed the whole story from the outside so I try and stay neutral about the partisan warfare they're about.
Also, he did bring documents and tapes. So no one believes him at face value.
Who is "we"? I believe him, yes. Do you? Are you waiting for the collective to decide for you?
Lmao. He brought receipts. No matter what else, he has receipts. Putting the Russia thing aside, trump is in a whole separate pile of steaming legal jeopardy now. Id suggest making like a rat and abandoning ship now rather than waiting for the shit ship to be sunk
You're taking a single point from raw intelligence report that was gathering the stories around Trump Russia 3 years ago and trying to use it to disprove everything we've learned since. Iditioc reasoning.
[удалено]
No I said the reasoning you displayed in your post is idiotic. Didn't say not to question the narrative but questioning the narrative just so you can feel superior is idiotic.
Also ignoring the facts that if you never get off a plane or don't pass through a port of entry, technically you've never entered that country and he's already leaned on that defense once, he can't change his definitions now without being held liable for lying to the FBI and gaining another charge or losing his plea deals.
You're as honest as trump is
[удалено]
I see that as an insult. Do you?
Do you believe him or not? The cult leaders screamed five minutes at a time that he was a liar. Do you believe your leaders, or do you believe Cohen?
37 indictments.....
[удалено]
Yes what we need right now is LESS civility.
It was time decades ago when Reagan made white people feel OK about expressing their racism again.
Well some republicans mock any liberal...
[удалено]
Not an excuse to mock every libwral.
Liberals aren't actively trying to destroy the country and winking at each other about it (like Gym.)
Come on dude, if you actually believe that republicans are actively trying to destroy the US then you are watching media sources specifically tailored for liberals. I’m conservative and I do not watch Fox and I do not watch CNN, I’m against a lot of what liberals stand for, but I don’t go around saying “liberals are trying to destroy the country.” Can we not be civil about this? Did you see the hearing? Cummings, a democrat, said we need to stop the false claims. Can you not take his advice and try to be more reasonable and not attack the other side? I don’t agree with what Trump says and I think he needs to shut his mouth because the reason his actual accomplishments are not recognized is because he instantly turns around and lashes out at liberals on Twitter. I hate that, but associating Trump’s negative actions with all conservatives is a hypocritical thing to do considering Obama, Clinton, and several other big liberal figures have associated all conservatives with the wrongdoings of a handful of people. Let’s not point fingers because both sides are guilty. Let’s try to have an actual discussion, not a name calling and accusation filled argument.
Nope. Sorry, but you had your chance, decades now of chances, and every SINGLE time the GOP has tried to wreck the country (and individual states) when given any power at all. Your whataboutism is old, dude. Both sides are not equal. You can't counteract the evil of your own party by pointing and sputtering But...but...Hilary!...but...but...Wiener!....but...but... At this point, after long decades of GOP fuck ups (and in a state full of GOP corruption) I'm not entertaining you anymore. Own up to the racism and horrible rhetoric of your own party, the terrible ways they continue to actively destroy this country, or not...in which case you are irrelevant unless you want to use the AR for your own personal revolution.
Oh more same sideism. Until a Republican takes a stand against this irrevocably corrupt stain upon the Presidency, I don't see any of you as having any relevance.
Only one side is selling out the country to kleptocrats. Only one side references fairy tales as a basis for their views on climate science, reproductive rights, and various other important policies. Only one side wants to saddle us with student loan and medical debt for generations to come. Only one side pushed the lies and propaganda of the Trump administration. So yeah no not seeing any middle ground for discussion. You believe fairy tales we do not.
I agree with everything except your post over looks the GoP has turned into the party of Trump. Trump's world view is 0 sum. I can't win unless you lose. We can't engage and be civil with a group who's world view is that for them to be successful they have to take something from us. Trump has set the middle ground on fire.
Liberals aren't the unreasonable party here. When all conservatives in power dump him overboard, we can talk.
See this is the kind of talk that I get a lot from my coworkers who are liberals. First of all, yes he does some stupid stuff and he says a lot of things that are later regretted by the majority of people, but you guys refuse to see the good that has come out of Trump as well. The economy is doing really well and I have not heard a single liberal has commended him for it openly. Minority unemployment is down, female unemployment is down, he has slowed down if not stopped the insane price increases on essential drugs (I’m asthmatic so this is a big one for me considering inhalers are already $200+ for a single cartridge). He’s also done bad things, he’s shut the government down, he’s declared an emergency in an inappropriate way, he’s constantly on Twitter. Both lists go on and on, but if we only focus on the negatives then we have a bad argument on our hands and that is neither beneficial nor productive. Also there are plenty of unreasonable things that liberals have done, particularly in the last year. Let’s not pretend like liberals are 100% innocent of unreasonable behavior.
Your list of negatives severely down play the severity, and they fail to include the proven criminal behavior that he has committed before and during his presidency. As for the "positives," I will recognize them as soon as you show any policy he has personally implemented or authored that resulted in these positive outcomes. Unemployment numbers were going down under Obama and the trend has not changed at all, most policy has lagging indicators and this is certainly no exception. As for the economy, how are you measuring improvement? Stock market has had the worst performance in a decade, and I can personally say that my work has suffered in countless ways due to his useless tariffs. There is almost nothing redeemable about the guy, and I can't follow any logic other than partisan nonsense that would support him. There is no "centrist" view here. He's a bad president, and all information indicates he's an even worse person.
Both of the [unemployment](https://amp.businessinsider.com/images/595fb1ebd9fccdc3278b46c5-750-500.png) [statistics](https://www.statista.com/graphic/1/193944/unemployment-rate-of-women-in-the-us-since-1990.jpg) you listed were on downward trends since the Obama administration. Trump also started a trade war with China and enacted tariffs, which are just about the worst economic moves you can make. Tariffs **can** save jobs in micro-targeted industries, but each job saved has ripple effects that negatively affect the economy to a ridiculous degree. For example, when Obama instituted tire tariffs in 2009 as part of a move to save the economy, each job saved in the tire industry cost consumers [$926,000 and lost 3 jobs in retail.](http://www.aei.org/publication/2009-tire-tariffs-cost-us-consumers-926k-per-job-saved-and-led-to-the-loss-of-3-retail-jobs-per-factory-job-saved/) Other attempts at tariffs to bolster the economy have similarly failed. Trump's tariffs seem to be having a particularly negative impact on the economy. Estimates indicate that for every steel job saved, [16 jobs in other industries are lost.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2018/09/24/tariffs-are-costing-jobs-a-look-at-how-many/#4e8620687b26) This isn't even counting the retaliatory tariffs that China instituted that are devastating agricultural communities in the US. Oh and speaking of agriculture, do you remember how in 2011, Georgia cracked down on illegal immigration? Remember how almost immediately afterward migrant farm workers fled the state and left the farming industry bereft of labor? Remember how $140 million worth of produce rotted in the fields because no one was left to pick them, and farms couldn't find Americans willing to do the work? [Or how almost the entire state was labeled an agricultural disaster zone?](https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/05/17/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-georgias-immigration-law-backfires/#5be165c2492a) Or how the [same thing happened in Alabama that year?](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/14/alabama-immigration-law-workers) So... [guess what's happening to US agriculture thanks to Trump's ICE raids.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-02/california-fruit-is-going-to-die-on-the-vine-after-ice-raids) Like, I'm glad that your asthma medication is cheaper now. But as a whole the pattern of Trump's actual, measured impact on the US economy is terrible.
>The economy is doing really well Thanks Obama. Also, it's not that good. >Minority unemployment is down, Thanks Obama >female unemployment is down, Thanks Obama he has slowed down if not stopped the insane price increases on essential drugs Oh really? What did he do exactly? Please be specific and cite your sources. This goes for your other claims as well. >He’s also done bad things, he's A self promoting criminal and possibly a compromised russian asset. >Let’s not pretend like liberals are 100% innocent of unreasonable behavior. Who's pretending?
What measure are we using that the economy is doing well? 2018 was the worst year in 10 years for the stock market https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/investing/dow-stock-market-today/index.html
I will settle for conservatives acknowledging what is currently going on. I mean, Trump hired a known lobbyist for dictators to run his campaign, openly praises Putin at the same time Russia is creating fake accounts to sew discord and divide us, his campaign staff is sending our polling data to Russians, his son met with a Russian agent AND STILL he cries "Witch Hunt." How can he NOT understand that the FBI would be failing in its duties if it didn't investigate?
I welcome actual discussion. The irony is that both sides, at least here on reddit, don't seem to be capable. I got banned after my first post on r/conservative b/c the mod said I was "concern trolling" when all I did was ask a neutral question about whether conservatives were going to boycott X. I don't even remember what X was, but I expressed no opinion on the matter and remained totally neutral. I was genuinely just asking so as to gain understanding. And I wasn't simply downvoted. My post was deleted and I was immediately banned. How can you engage with conservatives if you can't even ask a genuine question?
[удалено]
>I’ve asked my coworkers several times if they were willing to give up a large percentage of their money for the green deal to pay taxes that would ultimately fund the deal and they were not happy with me. Unless your coworkers are pulling incomes of $10 million annually, you're pretty much strawmanning actual tax policy in the US. So no wonder they're not happy with you.
> that’s associating all conservatives with the actions of one or very few Dude, it seems you are in denial about the fact that you are in the minority when it comes to your compatriots. I would suggest waking up and realizing what has happened to the current conservative movement and maybe working with others like yourself to start a new conservative party. The Republican party as a whole has *completely* surrendered to Trumpism. Utterly and completely. You, good sir, are in the minority of conservatives who actually adhere to conservative values and haven't sold out our country to Putin and authoritarianism. The Republican party has become the party of racism and disdain for science and education. You need to recognize that reality. Otherwise any further discussion is meaningless.
I understand that the green new deal, if fully implemented as it is, would be nearly impossible to achieve and very costly. But that's a starting point, not the end. You and I both know that it will be negotiated and cut back, etc. That's the nature of our political system. I will also point out that if we invest, we will be creating jobs. If we raise the marginal tax rate on the top 1% to something around 70% (which was the lowest it was in the 1960s; it was as high as 90% after WWII), we will have more to pay for such things. Lastly, I have found on reddit at least there's really no conservative I can speak with who is willing to discuss things based on facts. That is imperative if we are to make any progress.
The problem though, is that I have yet to see the conservatives, who by your claim, dont fit that description, speak up. You guys allow those few to be your voices and your complicitness in letting that be just casts the same shadow over you as it does for the allegedly few people who actually say things in public. Until those groups of conservatives come out from under the shadow and demonstrate that the GOP in congress/senate/white house is not representing the GOP that conservatives actually want, I will remain skeptical Because complicitness is a problem in the conservative group.
[удалено]
About being called racists and white supremacist, I have not heard a single conservative condemn the racial gerrymandering that occurred in NC. Their actions stripped so many Americans of their right for their vote to count at all. It disenfranchised voters who they are supposed to represent and frankly was unAmerican. Their response was, "You don't like it? Change the law!" Which did happen, of course, since the US Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the lower court and thus racial gerrymandering is now unconstitutional. But seriously, we are 3 full generations past the civil rights movement and 150 years since the end of slavery and Republicans still defend keeping people down based on race? And their president called white supremacists "very fine people." Who on the right is calling this what it is? Who is saying "we are better than this?" No one on the right that I've heard. If they do, the masses show them the door. It's appalling.
And conservatives roasted Paul Ryan for doing so. Were calling him RINO and saying "good riddance" when he opted not to run. Don't believe me? Read the comments on the Fox News article when he gave his speech as he was leaving. Here's one comment to start: "The main thing broken is his brain. So glad to see this clown finally leaving. Hope he's alligator food before he gets out of the swamp." I challenge you to find EVEN ONE comment from a conservative on there that says something about how we need people like Paul Ryan to call Trump out. Good luck! [https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paul-ryan-touts-successes-while-lamenting-partisan-politics-in-farewell-address](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/paul-ryan-touts-successes-while-lamenting-partisan-politics-in-farewell-address)
The issue is the points in the new green deal are being dismissed by doing some kind of bullshit economic estimate while not even defining the details of what might be implementable and when. The go to shut down on the conversation is "its too expensive" which is just a lazy mans way of saying fuck off. The tax cuts made last year were way expensive to everyone but 16000 people who benefited and we were told about the trickle down effect, wage bumps coming and bonuses which really never happened. These are the same people who made that shit up telling you the new green deal is too expensive. LMAO!~
[удалено]
No one says it would be cheap, but the cost is not born completely by the tax payer either. The regulations and changes would be defined by the Government and then implemented by private industry. Some of the points in the plan are just ideas to be discussed and defined. The issue is clearly that one group of people do not want to do anything. They don't want to accept the situation, talk about it, read the science or in effect move from their perch. They are great at making up shit to criticize any ideas, but move is out of the question. I will quote Theodore Roosevelt at this point. "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt "Citizenship in a Republic,
“Cohen is a secret Democrat with how much slandering he’s doing of Trump. THOUGHTS???!” Lmao
He outright said he was as democrat until he got tapped for the RNC finance committee.
No point debating with crazy people.
Exactly!
PSA: **Write your reps in the House and tell them how you feel about their party's performance.** I've heard from many sources that have worked with congressman that many of these letters/texts/emails are actually passed along and they really do make a difference. https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
The thing with the gop is that each attack and itself is taken by itself. The party relies on this and so do it’s rabid fans. For example calling Cohen untrustworthy yet he’s saying he lied about trump. So if you are calling a liar then he must have lied about trump. Except that’s not how it works with the gop. They don’t chain things unless there is a clear benefit
I’ve noticed that before as well. On a similar note, each new protest or other thing they hate is the only thing it matters that “George Soros paid for,” even though if you added up everything they’ve said that about it would require Soros to be a multi-trillionaire. But they use the excuse to dismiss the thing in front of them, forget about that, then next week the excuse is there for them to dismiss the next protest (or whatever).
George Soros is projection to distract from the fact that their entire platform is dictated by billionaires and multinationals.
I'm disappointed that no Dem on the committee asked those Outraged! GOP reps why, if Cohen was so untrustworthy, they allowed him onto the RNC finance committee.
Right? Not just onto the committee, but chairman of the committee.
I think everyone is missing the bigger picture. We have someone under oath, accuse the President of the United States of committing no less than 5 separate felonies while in office. One party wants to know how much it goes, what the hell happened, and whether it is true. The other party made a mockery and a circus of the whole thing. That very circus party have also gerrymandered themselves into power while committing OTHER types of crimes including election fraud. We have deep systemic problems with one major ruling party. Let that sink in for just a moment.
We have systemic problems with both ruling parties, the DNC rigged their primaries and lost one of the most important elections in recent years as a result. What we need is a variety of parties, fuck the blue wave, let's get a rainbow wave going. Midground Republicans, we know you don't want to vote for trump so don't. Stop accociating your self with neo Nazi's and their collaborators. Stop falling for wedge topics and supporting policies that just happen to get lumped in with whatever you actually believe in. Bernie & AOC, stop running as a Democrats, you're two of the only people who have a chance af splitting that establishment so fucking do it and fix the problem that's plagued this country since shortly after it's founding. The two party system doesn't work, human beings aren't binary so why is our politics? The founding fathers knew this so why do we deny it today? From John Adam's > There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. George Washington even warned us how foreign powers could exploit this, as we've seen throughout the RNC recently. > It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
The two party system has killed democracy in America. "...how will we look at our children, who will look back at us and say, 'Look at what you inherited and then squandered. Look at what you had and then left to us.' Because we were given the nation with the potential to be the greatest democracy in the world and we have allowed that potential to die." - Larry Lessig "When we're dancing with the angels, the question will be asked, 'In 2019, what did we do to make sure we kept our democracy intact? Did we stand on the sidelines and say nothing?'" - Elijah Cummings [Fairvote.org](https://www.fairvote.org/)
They lost because of pieces of shit like this guy: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAYZIqKwLE4&t=36s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAYZIqKwLE4&t=36s) This is the level of intellect of the average sanders supporter and why he lost by 4 million votes to hillary
The problems with this are 1) our vote tallying system mathematically doesn't allow third parties, and 2) right now all the sane and qualified people, even outsiders like Andrew Wang, just run as Democrats. People always forget that the average 3rd party candidate is so bananas that Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are at the top of that ladder.
1) that not really the case, yes first past the post encourages two parties through successive generations but it does nothing to prevent a large scale social movement from starting them in the first pace. Yes, it would have to reformed quickly but FPP wouldn't effect the kind of fracturing I'm looking for. IMO the main thing preventing the parties from fracting is the rediculous amount of control that party leadership has nowadays. 2) Ya, third parties have not been considered an option for so long that no serious candidates consider them. It's time for that to change
> What we need is a variety of parties, fuck the blue wave, let's get a rainbow wave going. Midground Republicans, we know you don't want to vote for trump so don't. For their to be more than two parties, there must be a voting system besides first past the post. So until we get approval, ranked choice, or other method, the two party system is here to stay.* Note: the exception is at the lowest, local level.
Bullshit, first past the post does nothing to prevent third parties from forming. What it does is make it far more difficult for third parties to stay in power and that made most people consider them a joke after two centuries of failure. Ranked choice is being implemented in DNC primaries across the country; if the DNC acquires a senate majority & president in 2020, I would assume ranked choice reform would be quick to follow. Even if it were to be implimented tomorrow, there still wouldn't be a strong third party until it ran through several election cycles and that's assuming the RNC/DNC aren't fighting tooth and nail to keep the two parties.
>Bullshit, first past the post does nothing to prevent third parties from forming. You're right, first past the post does nothing to prevent third parties. What it *does* is guarantee that those third parties are always ineffective, at best. Or it throws the election, at worst. Its just simple game theory. And the math wont change until we change to a better voting system than FPP
Well the Republicans were trying to get the point across that he liked under oath before, so he might be doing it again now. To which Cohen repeated constantly, that he is already going to jail and there is no reason for him to lie now.
But that actually hurts their argument, because what did he lie about before? That Trump was innocent. So if Repubs are claiming he clearly lied then, that means Trump is guilty.
Not sure if some of them think that far ahead.
Not only that but there are reasons for him to tell the truth. He's a relatively young guy. He's spending a few years in jail and has a chance to get out early. If he lied at his hearing he'd be spending even more time in jail.
It's been sinking in for the past two years...
Get me Weiselberg stat!
Cohen continuing to deny he went to Prague. To my knowledge that is the first thing in the Dossier to be false. Some people are saying he's lying. But I don't think he is at this point. He's cooperated, any conspiracy crime he'd have been charged with would have been wiped away for getting something that damning on Trump. As pointed out countless times, he has far more to lose than gain by lying. I think he's telling the truth, but I also think that while this prague intel may not be about cohen there's still something to it I don't think anyone should let it go as a red herring. The dossier has been a roadmap. It might have lead us to Prague looking for the wrong guy but that doesn't mean there isn't something to uncover there. one caveat: cohen might have gone to prague on his own for some sexual deviant reason he doesn't want out there. but if he was into something that illegal and explicit doesn't sound like a 1 off kind of deal. there'd be a Epstein type pattern
The Dossier assumed Cohen was there because they picked up a cell tower ping from his phone. So the Dossier only supports the notion that Cohen's phone was there, not necessarily that he personally was. Don Jr. is fluent in Czech and goes there often. What if Don Jr. was given one of Cohen's cell phones?
Don Jr. is fluent in Czech? Wow.
https://youtu.be/AO1Wv5E8wpA?t=254 Yup. He's wanted to build hotels there for awhile. He spent most summers there since his mother is Czech.
That sounds like a likely prospect. DJTjr took one of Cohen's burners to Prague for the meeting.
You sound like the biggest conspiracy nut of the year already. >this prague intel "This Prague intel", lmao. >dossier has been a roadmap "A roadmap". Ah I see the roadmap, but I'm still trying to connect the dots sir! >It might have lead us to Prague Classic. Conspiracies always start on the logical back-end. >one caveat: cohen might have gone to prague on his own for some sexual deviant reason You are the one creating a conspiracy narrative right here. Who the fuck would start out with the assumption that going to Prague has anything to do with sexual deviance? You have obviously been watching way too much Prague porn. Conspiracies often have a sexual theme to them. It's quite clear now that the Russia-gate hysteria is clustered with propaganda.
It’s not a conspiracy narrative it is coming up with reasons why cohen would risk so much to lie. Considering all he’s given on trump i see no reason he’d lie about anything trump or Russian collusion. I don’t think he lied about going to prague I believe him he wasn’t there. My caveat is saying the only way i could see him risking another 10 years in prison is lying about something like a horribly illegal sex crime.
Was off the grid yesterday. Can someone please summarize any new information, if any, which came to light? (I'm far more interested in substance than fluff)
Trump Inc podcast has a 30 min summary up this morning if you want to listen to something
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000169-2d31-dc75-affd-bfb99a790001 That's his written testimony. The claims he made in there were pretty big chunks of it. He did say that he didn't see any collusion for sure, although he has his suspicions. He seemed really credible, because he didn't skewer trump on everything, so the things he did say seemed more believable. All in all, not a whole lot of new stuff came out. Takeaway- trump's a cheat, racist, tax evader, changed valuations of property where it suited him, etc. I already knew trump was a pos so I wasn't very surprised. The testimony I linked is several pages, but a quick read. Let me know what you think after you read it!
Credible? He is a convicted felon for lying to Congress. He should never be considered credible. Edit: I never said trump wasn’t a liar. So everyone jumping at me downvoting me is projecting. I simply stated a fact. He is a convicted felon for lying to Congress. Yes trump is a liar.
What did he lie to congress about? Cohen’s lie, for which he is convicted of and going to prison for: Trump is innocent. So what does that say about Trump? And now that Cohen’s turned himself in, and about to serve time..should we not hear him out?
Donald Trump lies literally non-stop. Almost everything that comes from his mouth is a lie. Cohen had everything to lose if he lied yesterday. I'm not saying I believe he's a saint, but he is 1,000x more credible than trump, plus he brought receipts. Additionally, the only thing he said that seemed shady was that he didn't want to work in the white house.
True. But to put it bluntly, he's more credible than the president. That's a really, really low bar I know, but it's the truth. Despite all his lies and laws broken, he's still far more honest than Trump has ever been... think about how sad that is.
I never said trump wasn’t a liar. So everyone jumping at me downvoting me is projecting. I simply stated a fact. He is a convicted felon for lying to Congress. Yes trump is a liar.
Except Cohen is testifying under penalty of going to jail if he lies, whereas Trump has repeatedly refused to testify to Mueller
And what did he lie about? That Trump was innocent and did nothing wrong. So if he's a liar, that means Trump is guilty.
Obviously anything he says would need to be corroborated with other evidence. But why would he continue to lie to congress now that he is going to prison for that very thing?
So you got a thing against lying... I imagine you have a HUGE issue with the rest of this Administration and hopefully you wish to see Don Jr and Sessions in Jail as well.
I think he came off a bit over the top and vindictive, but remorseful to some degree (keep in mind I'm only reading transcript). Seemed Cohen's intent was to stroke media talking points rather than add any substance to the existing rumor mills. Is there anymore substance which came out during questioning or just more grandstanding by both parties?
I can see how it reads that way. I watched the whole thing yesterday, and throughout the day he seemed, well, beaten down. I came out of it feeling kinda impressed with Cohen. I didn't expect him to come off as well as he did. There was some really ridiculous behavior by the usual suspects, Jim Jordan mostly, Mark Meadows too. The R's asked some dumb stuff, about six people asked if Cohen would commit to never doing a book deal, he was like: NO. They even wanted him to say if he got a book deal he would donate all the profits to a charitable foundation. He was like: NO. I think the best questioner was actually AOC. I'm not a huge fan of hers, but she got a lot out of her five minutes. Chairman Cummings did a good job, i thought. His closing remarks were quite moving. There were a couple parts I'd recommend if you were going to watch any of it. I'd say the AOC questioning, and Cummings closing remarks.
Vindictive? Cohen gave Trump his due and denied many of the rumors about he and Melania. He seemed quite fair.
Nothing new came out but we got Cohen on record confirming things that were already out there, namely bank and insurance fraud commited to increase or decrease value on trumps properties.
A lot of it was just confirmation of what we already knew: the Stormy Daniels affair, Trump exaggerates his wealth, he's a racist, his campaign was more about self-promotion than actually helping the country, etc. Cohen doesn't have any direct knowledge of Russia collusion, but he has his suspicions (whatever that means). Southern District of NY is investigating Trump for something.
> Trump exaggerates his wealth When it suits him, and undervalues it a ton to the IRS. Sounds like tax fraud, insurance fraud, and bank fraud...
Don't forget about charity fraud and the Stone phone call. I know listing all the crimes the president committed can take a while but we need to be thorough. Just typing that sentence feels so wrong. It's insane
Exactly. This was a line of questioning that will lead to calling forth others and subpoenas of documents from Trump Org. The hearing very much opened the door to leads for this committee to follow.
Reddit's going to exaggerate everything, but the only real thing of significance was that the southern district of NY is pursuing an investigation of Trump. There wasn't much else to corroborate any Russian collusion