Who are more gullible, Flat Earthers or Trump supporters?

[Anonymous]

Who would you pick if you had to choose?

Trump Supporters

Flat Earthers

Aren't they usually the same people?

[nightdrot]

While I am no Trump supporter, want to know why he has strong supporters and who they are?

As the economy transitions from a manufacturing/extractions base to a service/high tech base, the working class has been under enormous pressure. Rising divorce and suicide rates, rising drug addiction rates, declining lifespans and other such pathologies.

Pathologies that were once thought to be the problems of the lower class. The working class having thought themselves patriotic, church going and upwardly mobile. Now, to them, it appears that the slats were kicked out.

This is not unknown in American history. The same problems arose as the US - and the West generally - transitioned from a mercantile/agricultural economy to a manufacturing/extractions economy in the late 19th century. (It also helped to spark a bloody civil war in which more Americans died at each other's hands than died in both world wars combined.)

Suffice to say, since the New Deal, the blue collar working class saw the Democrats as their party. This began to change in the 1980s - see also the Reagan Democrats, who were working class that made it into the middle class. Hence the famous phrase, "The Democrats made me middle class. The Republicans will keep me middle class."

However, the Democrats sought out the upper middle college educated young to replace the working class that, demographically, are in decline. This working class still considers the old GOP establishment hostile. The working class feels looked down upon and ignored.

Into this stepped Donald Trump. He gave, partly unconsciously perhaps, voice to that deep sense of resentment. (Trump, by the way, had been a Democrat. Only becoming officially a Republican three years before he was elected.) His harsh language about "the Swamp" and all the rest resonated with the working class and thus he became an iconic figure.

Suffice to add that when he unexpectedly won the presidency, his stature among his base soared. He did what they had thought not possible and thus Mr. Trump became a star.

By the way, this is not unknown in American history. See also President Andrew Jackson - famously called King Andrew. See also William Jennings Bryan. See also Huey Long - speaking of cult figures. See also, in a different way, H. Ross Perot. The difference again being that, with the exception of Andrew Jackson, Trump accomplished with those other historical figures had not.

Throw in the magnifying and echo chamber effects of technology and social media and Trump has gained an ardent following. His weakness being that he was a Johnny One Note. He was, unlike figures like Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, content to pour salt in the social wounds and thus failed to build an enduring coalition.

Mr. Trump's allies were correct. Mr. Trump's opponents were too busy looking down their noses at Trump and his "cult" - see also "deplorables" and "clinging to guns and religion" - to analyze the underlying fundamental reasons the the "cult" exists. Thus, in their way, Mr. Trump's opponents reap what they sewed.

So whose more gullible, Mr. Trump's supporters or those who were too busy looking down their noses at his supporters to analyze the real issues at stake? Who created Frankenstein's monster? Hmmmmmm.

[Derekk]

Economic disenfranchisement is too convenient an excuse to a large portion of Trump's base. While it is certainly true that a large number of Americans were growing hostile to the establishment, (as evidenced by Bernie Sanders and Trump both appearing to be popular in many states), a lot of this hostility is cultural. America has been a nation divided for decades culturally. Only now with the internet and the liberal victories over the years have the more socially conservative elements of society thrown themselves against the wall to try to stop the inevitable.

It misses the point entirely to blame anybody for "Frankenstein's monster". There is no singular monster. The monster is rural America, and if Trump wouldn't have won, somebody else like him would have.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk Dismissing Trump's base as making excuses is itself, too convenient. Look at the extensive sociological data. Further, as I believe I have mentioned, we have seen this before. See also the 1960s from the left and its' radicalism.

At no point did I say there was a "singular" explanation. Life and politics are seldom so simple.

As to rural America, that is HARDLY Mr. Trump's base. Please note that states that were once solidly in the GOP camp in the Reagan era - see Colorado for example, see also Iowa, are not much more variable.

Mr. Trump's base - to repeat - is the blue collar lower middle class, which mostly resides in inner suburbs and decaying industrial areas. The rural vote as it relates to the GOP has overall not varied that much since the 1960s. If that was the difference, Mr. Trump would never have been President.

It was Mrs. Clinton's failure to secure the traditional Democrat base that cost her the election.

[Derekk]

It's not Trump's base making excuses for themselves, it's people on the outside looking to excuse them. Perhaps I was unclear. Many Trump voters today will happily tell you that they appreciate Trump because he stands up to the crazy left wing transgender Marxist critical race theory-teaching Communists. These concerns are highly cultural and lacking any kind of economic force, at least obviously. To explain it primarily in economic forces is (ironically) pretty Marxist in and of itself. The voters themselves don't make excuses because they don't think there's anything to excuse. They have an enemy, they fight it, and they'll tell you exactly what it is. You don't need to examine sociological data to realize it, which again, ironically, is pretty patronizing. I'm not even sure what kind of sociological data you mean.

Rural America can be distinguished from the rust belt and upper class white suburbia sure, but this doesn't really change anything.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk What I was attempting to explain is where Mr. Trump's base came from and what he appeals to. Recall, the blue collar vote was solidly Democratic. It is only recently that it moved into the Republican camp.

Its' preferences in terms of the culture was highly traditional but they resided in the Democrat camp nonetheless. Indeed, you can see vestiges of it in states like West Virginia - see also Senator Joe Manchin.

What moved them into the Republican camp was economic pressures as noted, this at the same time as the Democrats began appealing more blatantly to the upper middle class college educated white collar worker. The more blatant the Democrat's appeal to that latter demographic, the more the more the former began to look for redress of its grievances.

Grievances that, to repeat, in cultural terms they already had, but yet were not moved to shift to the GOP. It was only as the shift in the economy began to put extreme pressure on the blue collar sector - rising suicide rates, declining lifespan, rising crime rates, etc. - that they moved away. Again this also set against a backdrop where the Democrats were giving less and less attention to blue collar concerns.

It was the concatenation of cultural and economic forces that provoked the move. Also, to repeat, we have seen this before. See also the transition of the economy from an agricultural/mercantile base to an industrial/extractions base that fed the populism of the likes of William Jennings Bryan.

[Derekk]

Could the switch from Democrat support to Republican support among the working class not just as easily be explained by the Democratic party's insistence on identity politics issues though? If what you're saying (or implying) is that "appealing to upper middle class college educated white collar workers" = "accepting the social views and suspicion of tradition that this social class shares", and then using the "upper middle class" part as a red-herring, then yes I'd agree with you. But if the Democratic party has done any appealing to the wealthy, it's often because wealthier and more educated people are less likely to share the kinds of populist racial or sexual populism that exists in Trump's base. There is a massive difference between appealing to the entirety of a person's views vs appealing to ONE sentiment that they have. It's why I think that a questionably racist, transphobic, older white male socialist would actually do very well in large swaths of America. Because they satisfy the economic pressures you state, while appealing to the ideological and cultural concerns that populists often have.

I still don't understand the idea that the Democrats have sold out the working class more than the Republicans have though. Arguably both parties have, and the Republicans have gone further by refusing any discussion on minimum wage, progressive taxation on the wealthy, universal basic income, etc. All policies that would concretely and specifically help the white working class.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk You may characterize the views of either side as you wish. My attempt was to be descriptive and not judgmental.

Is it sexist to oppose abortion? Well, I don't agree, but for purposes of this discussion, we'll let it go. The point being that the working class has what might be called - for purposes of convenience - more traditional values.

This sat fine with the Democrats, (Joe Manchin is pro-life, for example) However, as the upper middle class gained political weight - they, after all, tend to have college degrees and predominate in the tech sector (you make more money writing computer programs than you do turning screws on an assembly line) - thee Democrats turned their attention to that demographic and the working class, fairly or not, has tended to resent this. Hence the vitriol directed toward "elites" and such - the stock in trade of Donald Trump.

Please note, by the way, that in strictly demographic terms, the working class is declining. Thus the move from manufacturing to service. (Its' it historic parallel being the move from farms to factories in the late 19th century.)

Another factor at work is age. The students who were protesting on the campuses and rioting in the streets in the 1960s is now running corporations, hold high office and such.

Here an interesting twist. The technology of that age tended to force separate and distinct groups to view the world through one prism. Movies - starting in the silent era - radio and television were all mass audience phenomena. Hence the demand in the 60s for "do your own thing" and "fight the man."

CONT.

[nightdrot]

Funny thing, the new technology has a splintering effect. Internet, social media, etc. allows people to confirm their own biases and go to self-selected sources of information. Thus the response of the 60s generation now in charge - "wokeism" and "cancel culture."

Suffice to say, the working class views these developments - as they viewed the protesting kids in the 60s - with suspicion and hostility. Thus another reason for the tectonic shift in political loyalties.

This then the current political culture. Please also note that the point in my initial response was to answer this question. Its' not so implicit condescension toward Trump supporters is what has earned their resentment.

The anti-Trump people - and again, I stress that I am not a fan, as a Burkean conservative of Mr. Trump's populism - should spend less time looking down their noses and more time trying to analyze the sources of social grievances. Suffice to add that a society so riven will, sooner or later, experience a backlash - and it will not be pretty.

Besides, who was more "gullible? The folks who looked down their noses at Mr. Trump's supporters or the Trump supporters who watched their man get sworn into office and came within a whisker of seeing it happen again - and may still?

[Derekk]

I fundamentally disagree with you when you state that it's an anti-Trumper's job to stop looking down on them and understand them better. If the causes are as I believe, (fundamentally ideological and cultural rather than economic), then there is nothing more to understand. We have a fundamental disagreement on core values that isn't going to be bridged by understanding. Why do you think left-wing populists make the same point that you make? Because conceding this point means that we can't simply communicate better and have full democratic agreement on core issues among the general population. It's a load of nonsense. Trump's people are often blind to racial injustice, traditionally sexist, and have no interest in acclimating to the 21st century community of identities and values. These views, to me and to a whole lot of other people, are worth looking down on. And if Trump's base is further aggravated by this, I wouldn't view that as a tactical misstep on the part of the Democrats. There's no gullibility on either side. A lot of people fully granted that Trump could win, but we're not going to cower down and treat them with respect when a lot of them aren't worthy of it. I'm sorry if that's upsetting to you, but given that your brand of Conservatism seems to have been hijacked by these idiots, it really shouldn't be. Your party is gone, and you stand here shedding a tear over how misunderstood these people are. I don't understand it.

I'm happy to continue this conversation but the lessons in history are getting to be a bit much. If you have something concrete that demonstrates a point beyond tenuous theoretical projections of historical tendencies, I'll be happy to take a look at them. Specific data showing self-reported economic disenfranchisement as greater than 50% of the motive for voting Trump would be the kind of thing I'm looking for. I don't have any data myself, so absent either of us finding some, I don't see this getting anywhere.

[nightdrot]

@Derekk Interesting point you make. The "lessons of history are getting to be a bit much." You seem to be under the illusion that we can remake ourselves divorced from what came before.

Sorry, we learn from history and extrapolate from it the lessons that guide us forward. Absent that we are, as a wit once put it, "A self-made man who worships his creator." At the very least, that leave us to repeat the mistakes of the past. At worst, it is hubris.

Bottom line, not ever problem has a solution. Some problems are just difficulties that we must manage as best we can. However, if we start with the premise that those with whom we disagree are not merely mistaken, but are our enemies beneath our contempt, we will tend A) to underestimate them, B) take account of what valid points they may be making (unless you believe yourself holding a monopoly on truth, and C) find yourself not arguing, but shooting at each other.

[goaded]

Do you know why he still has strong support? It's because no Republican leader has had the guts to stand up to this modern McCarthy, even as he moved on from attacking immigrants to attacking the FBI and DoJ. His supporters are literally trying to kill law enforcement officers, but still they stay silent or back up his lies.

It's not surprising that his supporters won't listen to reason when it comes from a Democrat or ostracised Republican (meaning any of the very few Republicans who speak the truth), they've been trained not to for decades (long before Trump came along). It has to come from a Republican with power, like McConnell or McCarthy, Scott or DeSantis.

Why did he win in 2016? He told people what they wanted to hear, regardless of whether it was true or not, or if he had any intention of implementing policy.

He promised them things that the Republicans had been blocking the Democrats from giving them for decades (like universal health care). Of course, he sprinkled it with lies about the ACA, because admitting those unAmerican Democrats ever did anything right is unthinkable. He took anything he could use from anyone, the popular policies from Bernie, and the racist dog-whistles that the Republicans had been using for decades, along with the propaganda technique of repeating his lies over and over.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/TPJfKdp3bDs

He also provided scapegoats for the problems that real Americans were facing, like immigrants, Mexico, and China, even the government itself, with no solutions. He signed a law against mishandling of government documents, even as he was breaking it, just to be used against Hillary.

There is a swamp in DC, always has been, but he had no intention of "draining" it, he used it, instead. He put family into positions they never should have had (one couldn't even get security clearance). He spent endless taxpayer money on himself, pocketing the profits. His supporters refuse to see that, and only listen to his words.

At least most Flat Earthers shut up when you point out that ships going from South America to Australia don't pass California, Alaska and Japan on the way.

[EllaNella]

Cue the triggered trumpies in the replies

i'm sensing a strong C on this one

[Agagagagaga]

Cue the dumb cunts who can’t help but make fun of the Orange Man because they have nothing else going on in their lives.

[EllaNella]

aaah, there is one. a trump-fan in the wild. he is indeed already triggered. it generally doesn't take them a lot to lose control of their emotions, but this one is a very triggered specimen. how interesting.

[UCrayCray]

@Agagagagaga
Lmao. She said words you don’t like, so she’s a dumb cunt? 😂🤣
As long as his defenders with nothing going on their lives are around to defend him and continue his kindergarten level name calling, the words of anonymous internet posters will never truly hurt him.
That should bring you some comfort.

[Pink2000]

Trump supporters… if trump told them to give him their last penny they’d do it…

[MCheetah]

Say whatever you want about Flat Earthers, but at least they aren't gullible sheep who believe the same horseshit the mainstream media and their Democratic masters tell them to. If I had to choose, I'd rather be an idiot and think for myself, than an idiot and regurgitate the same hateful shit over and over again because I'd be a troll with nothing better to do with my life.

Why don't you just post these without being a cowardly pussy, so I can block you and never have to see idiocy like this on GAG ever again?

[ManOnFire]

Might lean ever so slightly towards flat earthers. You at least have Trumpers who turned away from him, even in Congress. But ask the flat earthers why no one has ever been to the edge of our flat earth and fallen off, they still can't answer it. And the 'Christian' ones believe that when the Bible talks about the "foundations of the earth" that it is a literal structure holding up a flat surface.

[Anonymous]

Why would you believe Trump supporters are more Gullible than you? Is it because the information you subscribe to tells you the information they subscribe to is incorrect?

If so what makes you think your information is any more compete than theirs?

From a Trump supporter's point of view Trump got results, where as our current conditions under Joe Biden are not so favorable.

Why should we believe the information that led to more favorable outcome for us is less reliable than the information that led to the current circumstances?

Whom should I believe you or my lying eyes?

[goaded]

What did your lying eyes see on Jan 6th?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded A protest, I didn't support on the grounds that its clear congress has no legitimate power to address the issue being protested.

[goaded]

It was never intended to get congress to address the issue, it was to stop the official count for long enough that emergency rules came into place and Republicans could choose the president.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The Federal constitution does not contain any "emergency rules". The president is either picked by a majority of the State electors or if there is no majority its picked by congress in a vote by State in the house, and majority in the senate (also effectively state).

Which frankly was the original way Presidents were intended to be selected originally. Few people thought 2 parties would form to consistently win electoral majorities.

Those are the only 2 options, and the only relevant deadline had already been met the prior months when the States actually cast their electoral votes. Therefore nothing of relevance happened nor could happen on January 6th.

Congress does not have the power to refuse an order by the States.

[goaded]

"nothing of relevance happened nor could happen on January 6th."
You haven't been paying attention to the many ways in which Trump and the Republican party tried to steal the presidency, have you?

Yes, if no candidate gets a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, each state gets one vote for president in the House. Since there were more Republican states than Democratic ones, they could have chosen Trump.

The plan was either to have Pence throw out some state's votes (based on forged documents purporting to justify alternate slates of electors), or, with the violent attack on the Capitol, to delay the counting until after the end of the day (Pence, it seems, was worried that that could be achived by members of the Secret Service keeping him away from the Capitol once evacuated), or possibly even by stealing or destroying the official documents recording the votes (they were saved by Congressional aides as they evacuated).

I doubt the people who wrote the rule (that was clearly intended for situations where there more than 2 realistic candidates for president) anticipated that people who'd sworn an oath to uphold the constitution would so readily break it in an attempt to install their candidate as president.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Its true if congress had requested clarify from the states that cast different sets of electors it could have changed things. But this would not be a coup because the States still commanded said electors and could cast them in anyway their goverment wanted.

The laws of said states would almost certainly require them to clarify it the same as the popular vote so this wouldn't change anything.

The only thing that could have changed the results is either investigating and revising that poplar vote in the States where the fraud took place or having the State legislator there of simply cast the electors itself as was done at the beginning.

Either way nothing would happen in Washington unless enough said states simply refuses to cast their electors at all. Seeing as they had already cast their electors the prior month thou a few of them someone non-clearly, the deadline where they might forfeit their vote had already passed so.

So the State would have to intentionally forfeit its vote after January 6th.

[goaded]

I think you're missing the point that the states did NOT "cast different sets of electors", the "alternate" slates were unlawful, their documents were forgeries, and their aim was a coup.

They knew what they were doing broke the law.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded That is up to the State to decide.

[goaded]

It's good that you don't dispute the facts that the participants in the scheme to steal the presidency knowingly forged official documents to unlawfully present to the federal government in order to give cover for their state's results to be ignored and Trump retained as president. They were committing fraud against the people of the United States in order to stage a coup.

Georgia and the Doj (on behalf of the federal government and states that have referred their cases to them, presumably because the forged documents were for a federal election) are investigating. Lindsay Graham's trying like crazy to avoid testifying in Georgia where we even have a recording of Trump interfering in the election.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded They had a valid case to dispute the idea that the laws of the States in question had been followed. Absence a fair trail for which no time was given , their measures may be seen as upholding the law as they understood it.

[goaded]

Why am I not surprised you're defending their illegal actions? The law doesn't and shouldn't care if you think you're doing the right thing when you break it.

They did not have "a valid case to dispute the idea that the laws of the States in question had been followed", if they had, they could have brought a case to court at the proper time. They did not. Instead, they knowingly forged official documents to unlawfully present to the federal government in order to give cover for their state's results to be ignored and Trump retained as president. They were committing fraud against the people of the United States in order to stage a coup.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I'm afraid you were misinformed, asking for to have congress send the electoral results back to the states to re-certify is NOT illegal. Those asking congress to ignore the electors are legally impossible, that's not however what Trump requested nor what most those there wanted.

Why do you a German have so much interest in American politics specifically in Democrat political power? What does it mean to German and you?

Is not your own country's decades of catastrophically bad goverment which is effectively wiping the German people from the face of the earth something you should be dealing with?

[goaded]

I'm afraid you're lying. Forging documents is not legal. Conspiracies to defraud the American people (seven states tried the same unlawful trick which is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy) are not legal. If you ask "to have congress send the electoral results back to the states to re-certify" for no valid reason, you're part of the conspiracy.

You're also resorting to ad hominem, but in answer to your question: "What does it mean to German and you?", quite simply that all Europeans can look at our history and recognise that what Trump is trying to do is take over your country in much the same way Hitler and Mussolini did in theirs nearly a hundred years ago.

"Is not your own country's decades of catastrophically bad goverment which is effectively wiping the German people from the face of the earth something you should be dealing with?"
Oh, and a little bit of racist seasoning? Keep going, you're showing exactly who you are.

I'm an immigrant to Germany, by the way.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded You mean to say its illegal for Republicans to forge documents as clearly democrats can and do forge documents all they want from Bush's military record to Hillary Clinton's Russian Dosia.

As for The protest over which your still obsessed on January 6th I don't know of any forge documents. Just a demand for equal treatment under the law and to request recertification, so we can actually look unprecedented amount of election fraud that took place in 2020 thanks to last minute legal changes or simply ignoring laws as was in the case of many states.

You might better understand why we believe there is so much fraud if you had actually cast a vote in many of theses states and seen the level of security or lack there of to prevent any kind of voter fraud. Really it is quite ridiculous, Epic ridiculous in 2020 where thanks to "The pandemic" most prudent security measures were thrown out the window in many states.

Even before that for many years in the State i voted anyone and everyone could have easily walked in and stolen my vote for all the security measures taken to protect it, they just needed my name.
Not that it would be worth doing so given the State does almost nothing to prevent crooked county officials from manufacturing ballots.

I made no ad hominem attack upon you. I believe you are genuinely almost as Ignorant as you are interested in American politics I don't understand why, when Germany has soo many far more serous problems threatening her very existence.

To claim it is racist to be against the systematic elimination of the German people is like Adolf's treatment of the Jews an act of love for their culture.

You got it backwards.

[goaded]

So, whataboutism falacy now, to go with the ad hominem (what has me being German got to do with American politics)? Saying "other people have broken this law" is not a defence.

"I don't know of any forge documents" Yes, you do, I told you about them. Just search for "Fake electors" on a decent search machine. www.theguardian.com/.../fake-trump-electors-us-investigation-doj They came from seven states, none of them were from the states' government.

What else... lies... lies...

"for many years in the State i voted anyone and everyone could have easily walked in and stolen my vote for all the security measures taken to protect it, they just needed my name."
OK, and say 10,000 or more people did just that? What would have happened? There would have been thousands of irate voters being told they'd already cast their vote. Any significant in-person voter fraud would have been obvious.

"To claim it is racist to be against the systematic elimination of the German people is like Adolf's treatment of the Jews an act of love for their culture."
OK, I'll give you some more rope. Who, exactly is performing this "systematic elimination"?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I'm sorry but if you don't care for equal application of the law, im not sure why you expect me to care about any similar supposed violation regardless of how implausible the charge is.

Lets be frank the charges you make against Trump are soo implausible they are silly. Why not gaslight anther republican with said charges, perhaps one who didn't have ultimate declassification authority.

[goaded]

Oh, you want to pretend I'm not for "equal application of the law", now? Then come up with some actual examples of forgeries of federal and state government documents by anyone but Republicans.

The fake electors scheme was addressed in the fourth Jan 6th hearing. www.npr.org/.../jan-6-committee-hearing-transcript

"None of the legislatures agreed to go back in the special session and declare him the winner. No legitimate state authority in the states Donald Trump lost would agree to appoint fake Trump electors and send them to Congress. But this didn't stop the Trump campaign either. They assembled groups of individuals in key battleground states and got them to call themselves electors, created phony certificates associated with these fake electors, and then transmitted these certificates to Washington and to the Congress to be counted during the joint session of Congress on January 6th. None of this worked, but according to federal District Judge David Carter, former President Trump and others likely violated multiple federal laws by engaging in this scheme, including conspiracy to defraud the United States."

If you want to go into the stolen documents (which are government property, not Trump's, regardless of their classification status), we can, but this is a conversation about Trump's plans to steal the presidency he lost and defraud the American people.

[Anonymous]

Trump supporters, bless them.

[Agagagagaga]

At least it’s a man and a woman and not some trannies or sodomites.

[USLegionary]

Biden supporters if they think Biden will forgive student loans and isn't really bailing the banks out again because they've got so many bad student loans on their books that they may collapse.
#TooBigToFail

[exitseven]

Over 90% of small business owners and most first responders and union guys in the trades arid Trump supporters. I would not call any of them gullible.

[ProVox]

Your mom for believing your dad would pull out. We all lost on that load.

[Kingofkings1992]

Neither. Flat earthers for the most part aren’t being serious. Trump supporters don’t follow the crowd, and know what’s truly best for their country. The most gullible people walking the planet are SJWs and BLM supporters.

[Anonymous]

Loony lefties like you! The fact that you gobble down everything CNN and the mass media tells you and beg for more PROVES THAT!

Can you BE any more of a loser?

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Lol... interesting choices. Hard to choose.

[Anonymous]

Dude... Lefties believed Jussie Smollet.

😐

[goaded]

Only until he was shown to be a liar. You guys still believe Trump's inauguration crowd was the biggest ever.

[Slingblade1126]

I don't blame leftists for believing Smollet, I blame them for believing the mass media. Enter: Nick Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse, Carter Page, the constant false stories about Russia, Russia, Russia, propping up disgraced James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter lover boy, among many others. When they hate a population of people so much, the truth no longer matters. All that matters is running blind with a narrative and leaving all journalistic integrity in the dumpster. Why? Because they feel that by slowly destroying "domacracy", they are actually saving it.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Which stories about Russia were definitively false?

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded That isn't the standard we go by in this country. I'm under no obligation to prove a story "definitively false". Burden is on you to prove it true.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 You have standards? Who knew! You said they were "constant false stories", you prove it.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded Off the top of my head I can think of the mass media saying Don Jr called Trump after the meeting with Russians at Trump tower. Proven false. Another one was Trump telling Michael Cohen to lie under oath. Proven false. Michael Steele, himself, said most of his dosier was fake. Again, I'm not obligated to prove something didn't happen. That's kinda hard. You just can't prove it did happen.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 LOL. The Chairman of the Republican National Committee said most of his dosier was fake? You said it was proven false, that's a claim, prove it.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded Wow, you just don't get it! You need better sources of info. The main thing that was investigated about the dosier, the most important thing, was Michael Cohen meeting with Russian officials in Prague. That was proven false about 3 fucking years ago! Lol. Also, I never said the dosier was false, I said most of it was according to the actual authors. Why don't you start proving something? What was verified about the dosier?

[Slingblade1126]

Shit! I meant Christopher Steele!

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 None of those things you listed seem to be absolutely vital to the Russia story, and rather than being "proven false" they seem to be "not proven", which is something else altogether (who on Earth knows what Trump said to Cohen in private, other than the two of them?). Mueller, in particular, just mentions Prague in passing, and accepts Cohen's word that he wasn't there.

I'd love to see where Christopher Steele said "most of his dossier was fake".

What was important was the Mueller report conclusion that said Russia interfered and broke US law doing so. And that Trump obstructed the investigation in many ways and Congress should decide whether to indict, not Barr.

"Simpson has described his own and Steele's confidence in Steele's work: "Nothing that I have seen disproves anything in the dossier. Which isn't to say I think it's all true. I don't think Chris thinks it's all true, either. But there's a difference between things being fake or a hoax or a fraud or a lie and things being incorrect."[19] Steele, the author of the dossier, said he believes that 70–90% of the dossier is accurate,[77][59] although he gives the "golden showers" allegation a 50% chance of being true.[59] "
en.wikipedia.org/.../Steele_dossier

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded Steele said to FBI agents that the vast majority of his dossier is third hand, which in FBI terms means it's mostly bullshit! That's one of the reasons they broke off contact with him. Mueller said,."Michael Cohen never traveled to Prague. I am no longer concerned with that aligation. Cohen meeting with Russian officials and having family members in Russia (another false story), with ties to Putin, was crucial to the investigation. The Steele dossier was the reason the FBI lied to get FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page. Also, for the 30th fucking time, Mueller NEVER said Trump obstructed justice. He said, under oath, "we never made that calculation". I honestly believe he intentionally came to a non decision so people like you will run around saying he's guilty of obstruction. I don'tdispute that Russia meddled in the election but how does that make Trump guilty ofor conspiracy? Now, I want you to prove Trump's crimes. The one's you've been accusing him of for years. The burden is on you, not me.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 So Steele told the FBI the truth about his dossier, that's nothing like him saying "most of his dossier was fake", is it? So that's a false claim you're making.

“Cohen had never traveled to Prague and was not concerned about those allegations, which he believed were provably false,” the report says on page 139, that's Cohen not being concerned, not Mueller (although they seem content to accept it, probably because it's wildly unimportant to the overall case; there are 20 pages about Cohen, his false statements, and Trump's attempt to interfere with him as a witness).

"Mueller [told] lawmakers on Wednesday that he did not evaluate “collusion” with the Russian government, and confirming that his report DID NOT CONCLUDE that there was “no obstruction” of the probe." www.politico.eu/.../ (emphasis added).

"“The president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed,” Mueller told the House judiciary committee, adding that Trump could theoretically be indicted after he leaves office... his 448-page report, ... chronicles dozens of contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, as well as 10 potential instances of obstruction of justice by Trump"

You can believe what you like, but the fact is that Mueller was under constraints not to indict, or recommend the indictment of, a sitting president. He also said "if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so", so it's a bit rich for you to claim that he only left it ambiguous to encourage Democrats.
www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-reiterates-would-have-stated-trump-exonerated-1438504

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded a prosecutor DOES NOT exonerate. That is law 101. Either he prosecutes or he doesn't. Mueller never investigated the dossier, that was being handled by the DOJ and IG Horowitz. Horowitz found that that the allegation was "untrue". Mueller didn't even know what fusion GPS was. It was also found to be false by the FBIs own investigation. That was the biggest claim of the dossier, that there was supposedly a meeting with Russian officials and Cohen, to get payment from Cohen for hacking emails and discuss further operations. That would be direct conspiracy. Also, Steele told agents that the dossier is "exaggerated and sensationalized". His main source also said it. He is currently under indictment. So far you haven't proved shit about any criminal acts you continue to accuse Trump of. When is that gonna start?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Mueller literally said that he *would have said*, had they found proof that Trump had not committed any crimes. That would have been exoneration, so that's another false claim of yours.

"So far you haven't proved shit about any criminal acts you continue to accuse Trump of. When is that gonna start?"
You know Trump was the unindicted co-conspirator with Cohen for the Stormy Daniels payoff, right? Cohen was found guilty, so a crime was committed. Trump wasn't indicted because he was still president.

Then there are the government documents Trump stole and lied about obstructing justice.

And I'm sure you prefer to ignore the ten counts of potential obstuction listed by Mueller.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded "potential" acts of obstruction. Again, a prosecutor DOES NOT EXONERATE. I don't care what Mueller said. Obviously he did it for the benefit of people like you. As far as documents being stolen? I know about as much as you do. Which is almost nothing. Two weeks ago you had Trump being executed because he had highly classified documents about nuclear bombs! We now know that probably isn't true. And now the FBI is leaking ridiculous photos to get morons like you on their side. That tells me one thing, they probably have very little on him. When are you going to get tired of being lied to? Seriously, you put way to much faith and hope in the government and media to be honest with you. Is it only because it's about Trump?

[Slingblade1126]

Oh, prosecutors had almost a year to indict Trump for paying off Stormy. Why didn't they?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I don't know why they didn't try Trump for the Stormy crime. Statute of limitations, perhaps?

I'll take Mueller's word over yours that he would have exonerated Trump if their investigation warranted it.

"Two weeks ago you had Trump being executed because he had highly classified documents about nuclear bombs!"
That's just not true. Par for the course.

And what we do know is that Trump had the property of the US government that he'd unlawfully taken from the White House, refused to return it, and obstructed in their attempts to retrieve them.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded "exonerated Trump if the investigation warranted it"? What does that even mean? Look, what it comes down to is Mueller NEVER calculated the evidence of obstruction! Plain and simple. He never said Trump obstructed or that he didn't. It would literally be impossible for him to exonerate Trump under the circumstances. Exonerated means you are innocent. Not that evidence is lacking but that evidence CLEARLY shows you didn't do it. That mainly happens when someone is accused of murder and either DNA evidence or a confession from another party EXONERATES you. I don't see how that would be possible in this case. Also, the statute of limitations did run out as far as Stormy Daniels but they let it expire. They had 5 years to build a case and almost a year to indict Trump after he left office. You don't know shit about the files. You don't know if they were or weren't stolen according to law. You don't know the legalities of how they were/are supposed to be declassified. You don't know how or if Trump obstructed. This is uncharted territory. What is going to fuck the justice department is how they handled previous cases that were similar. That sets a precedent. If it goes to the scotus, case law will be hard to argue against.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 It means that if Mueller had found no evidence at all of wrong-doing, he'd have said so. Quite simple, really.

Mueller was not allowed to make the decision to indict Trump, even if he'd wanted to. He also didn't investigate "collusion", just "conspiracy", which is a much higher bar, especially if your investigation is be actively obstructed and witnesses tampered with. People were convicted of covering up for Trump.

If Mueller found no evidence Trump obstructed his investigation and had no contacts with Russia, he would have said so. Instead, he found multiple cases of both, carefully documented in his report.

I know all those things you insist I don't, because I pay attention to lawyers and judges, and even Bill Barr says Trump had no excuse for posessing them. (Remember, if Trump had simply returned the documents when first asked, there wouldn't have been all this fuss.)

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded again, you don't know what communications were going on. According to what I heard, they raided Trump's house because they had an informant saying he was going to supposedly destroy evidence. That is sketchy at best. You can pay attention all you want but unless you have access to the documents and affidavits and a clear understanding of law when it comes to this, you know as much as I do. I try not to speculate. I don't like to play the game of opinions and conjecture. Bill Barr may have some inside info, but I don't take much of what he says serious. Let me ask you this, just so we can get out of this rabbit hole. Did Mueller say Trump obstructed? Yes or no? I know Mueller didn't decide on obstruction due to the olc. I've only said it 3,4 fucking times! Why are you bringing up conspiracy and collusion? It has nothing to do with our discussion.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Do you know how often know-nothings tell me I don't know what's going on when they're desperate? I can read subpoenas and court documents as well as anyone, and they're all sworn to, unlike you, who just wants to pretend reality isn't happening.

"According to what I heard" sums it up, really.

Whatever the reason the Trump appointed judge signed off on the legal search warrant, the fact is that stolen documents Trump's lawyer had sworn had been given back to the government were found. What's your excuse for that?

Here's a guy with "access to the documents and affidavits and a clear understanding of law when it comes to this" (or are you going to insist on the unredacted affidavits and the content of the top secret documents?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbcKCphPqBs

You can keep saying Mueller didn't say Trump obstructed until the cows come home, I'll keep pointing out that he explained very clearly that he couldn't say that of a sitting president, and equally clearly that he would have said if the investigation found nothing wrong in Trump's actions. Obviously, he did find many things wrong, and documented them in his report.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded Do you know how many times I deal with people like you? People that think they're some type of superior intellect but in reality know nothing. It's obvious you have no clue of a prosecutors job. You keep saying Mueller couldn't come to a decision about obstruction. No shit! I've only said that a dozen fucking times now! But then you claim he said Trump obstructed the investigation? Is that right? And your evidence is Mueller carefully detailing it? No shit, sherlock! That's what a prosecutor does! They investigate possible crimes, detail and examine the evidence, then determine if crimes were committed and if they can meet the burden of proof for a conviction. In the case of conspiracy, he detailed and examined evidence of possible crimes and determined there was insufficient evidence. In the case of obstruction, he detailed the evidence but NEVER examined it for actual crimes. So, I'll answer my question for you.
NO! Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice. As far as Mar a lago, start detailing for me. What evidence/reason did they have for raiding? What are in those documents? Did the government exhaust all avenues to retrieve the documents? What chargers are going to be filed and when? Were the documents declassified? What is the actual process of declassifing them? What inside info do you have?

[goaded]

Mar-a-Lago:
Redacted affidavit:
d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/.../...4.102.1-2.pdf
Memo explaining the redactions:
s3.documentcloud.org/.../...edacted-memorandum.pdf
Unsealed document list:
s3.documentcloud.org/.../...aled-document-list.pdf

Since reading them would undermine all your potential arguments:

"What evidence/reason did they have for raiding?"
Trump had told the government that he had returned all of the documents (which belong to the government). They found out he hadn't. They had evidence he had stolen property and was keeping it from the rightful owners.

"What are in those documents?"
Classified, up to Top Secret and higher, documents that belong to the government.

"Did the government exhaust all avenues to retrieve the documents?"
They did everything they legally had to do to finally get the documents back. Why do you think someone who'd lied to federal agents about possessing them would hand them over freely? He'd had 18 months of respectful requests, and they hadn't worked.

"What chargers are going to be filed and when?"
Who knows, but the affidavit lists:

18 U. S. C. § 793(e), 18 U. S. C. § 1519, 18 U. S. C. § 2071. None of which rely on the classification of the documents in question, so

"Were the documents declassified? What is the actual process of declassifing them?"
Irrelevant.

"What inside info do you have?"
Why would I need any? What inside info do you have?

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Mueller: Do try to be a little bit consistent. You admit that Mueller was constrained from indicting or making an equivalent finding in his report because the target of the investigation was a sitting president. Yes?

So he could not act as a normal prosecutor, when it came to the president, could he?

So why are you saying that because he didn't act as a normal prosecutor, Trump must be innocent?

Do you not see the blatant disregard for logic and common sense in that?

The fact is that Mueller documented, I think it was ten, acts that could be (he was not allowed to determine that there were definitely obstruction, remember) seen as obstruction and dozens of contacts with Russia and also explicitly said that had the investigation exonerated the president, he would have said so.

A reasonable conclusion can be drawn from that: Trump was not exonerated by the report; there are reasonable grounds for suspicion that he committed crimes including obstruction.

The difference between collusion and conspiracy is that the former, while well understood, is not in the criminal code. The latter is far harder to prove (apart from anything else, I think it requires proving intent).

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded oh, I know the difference between collusion and conspiracy but that is totally irrelevant to what we're discussing. So far I'm the only one that has been consistent. For the 5th fucking time I'll explain it again. Mueller never made a decision on obstruction but you're trying to tell me by not exonerating Trump (which isn't a prosecutors job, for the 3rd time!) that supposedly means he obstructed? You see, I have said, at leat 4 fucking times, it was a NONE DECISION!, Which means he never said he did or didn't. Why can't you accept that? Also, the government did not exhaust all legal Avenues to get the documents and all evidence shows Trump was cooperating. He had been returning documents since Feb., I believe, he also returned them when served on June 3. If they had evidence he didn't return them all, serve him again. In order to raid a home and take everything that isn't bolted down, you need to show immediate danger of evidence being destroyed or an endangered life. We now know they took the weekend off before raiding. Again, what was the reason for raiding his house? Classified documents isn't a legitimate reason. After all, they knew he had documents remaining in his home since their June 3rd visit. They told him to put another lock on the door to make them more secure. You still don't know what is actually in those documents and to say it's "irrelevant" if they were properly declassified is delusional! Aligations and speculation isn't proof. You know as much as I do.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Like I said, every time you imply Trump was innocent because "Mueller didn't say", I'll point out that you've agreed that Mueller couldn't say it, even if he wanted to, so your inference is meaningless.

You admit that Mueller was constrained from indicting or making an equivalent finding in his report because the target of the investigation was a sitting president. So he could not act as a normal prosecutor, when it came to the president.

So stop saying that because Mueller didn't act as a normal prosecutor, Trump must be innocent. It's transparent bullshit.

"Also, the government did not exhaust all legal Avenues to get the documents and all evidence shows Trump was cooperating."
1. Why should they, and 2. Bullshit; he was keeping documents back while claiming to have returned them all, and the stuff they found in the search is absolute proof of that.

Forget the bogus claims from a liar that the documents had been declassified; none of the laws mentioned in the affidavit require them to have been classified.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded since you love to " " people so much, can you quote me implying in any way, shape or form where I said by Mueller not reaching a decision means Trump is innocent. YOU'RE the one that kept implying Mueller basically said he obstructed because he never said he didn't. I also think you need to learn the definition of "exonerate". It seems that's where a lot of confusion, on your part, is coming from.

[Slingblade1126]

Anyway, it's been a spirited debate. I also appreciate what you said about "blue collar" workers. My dad and mom busted their asses so I could have it a little easier in life and get an education to be where I am today.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 So you're saying you agree with me that Mueller not reaching a decision doesn't mean Trump is innocent?

Then why do you keep bringing it up? I can think of no reason other than to imply ("to hint; to insinuate; to suggest tacitly and avoid a direct statement") he was innocent. At the very least, I think you'd like people to think the two possibilities are of comparable probability.

Exoneration means "demonstration of innocence". Mueller definitively stated that, had the investigation exonerated Trump, the report would have said so.

I'm not "implying Mueller basically said he obstructed", I'm saying it outright: his report documented multiple obstructions to his investigation by Trump and dozens of Russian contacts with the campaign. Not to mention the people who were convicted of obstruction.

If Mueller said he was not allowed to say a particular colour, but that it matches the sky on a sunny clear day, it would be reasonable to conclude that the colour is sky blue. It would not be reasonable to conclude that we can't possibly know the colour, would it?

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded I'm bringing it up because YOU keep saying I'm implying Mueller said he was "innocent" of obstruction. By your lack of a quote and diversion, also you saying he said he was guilty, I now realize you were just projecting.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 I can't quote you because, like it says in the definition of imply: "to hint; to insinuate; to suggest tacitly and avoid a direct statement", there is no direct statement of yours to quote.

Although I guess this comes close: "I honestly believe [Mueller] intentionally came to a non decision so people like you will run around saying he's guilty of obstruction.". That is telling, because you intentionally ignored the fact that Mueller was not allowed to make that decision. Mueller *could* not say Trump was guilty, he *would* not say he was innocent. The only reasonable conclusion: Trump was not innocent.

The question now remains: why don't you accept that the multiple documented instances of obstruction in Mueller's report are evidence that Trump's guilty of obstruction?

The two possibilities, Trump being innocent or guilty of obstruction, are not equally likely. Not even close.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded You said, prior, "what is important is that Mueller said... Trump obstructed justice in many ways". My response was, "Mueller never said Trump obstructed justice. He said, under oath, "we never made that calculation". Then I went on to say what you quoted me as saying. That is a far cry from me implying Trump is "innocent". Again, you believe Mueller would have indicted him, if not for the OLC. That's fine but don't project your passion of his guilt as some how being equal to my passion of his innocence. I at no time said he never obstructed.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Actually what I said was: "What was important was the Mueller report conclusion that said Russia interfered and broke US law doing so. And that Trump obstructed the investigation in many ways and Congress should decide whether to indict, not Barr."

I'm sorry I didn't make it clear that the obstruction allegations were in the body of the report not the conclusion, but the fact remains that there was evidence of Trump's obstruction in the report. Since Mueller was not allowed to say Trump should be indicted, but was perfectly free to say that Trump had done nothing wrong, the only reasonable conclusion is that Mueller believed Trump had done something wrong.

[Slingblade1126]

@goaded Jesus Christ! I know he gave examples of "possible" obstruction. That is the job of a prosecutor. What don't you get? He did the same for conspiracy and decided there was insufficient evidence. Never said he was "innocent" of conspiracy, again, that isn't his job. For him to say he would have exonerated Trump, of obstruction if he could have, is not only irresponsible but bordering on unethical. If you think by him not reaching a decision is the same as saying Trump is guilty, that is fine. I accept that. Also, for what it's worth, the DOJ declined indictment. I know you don't care because it was a "Trump" DOJ but the reality is, they did decline for various reasons.

[Slingblade1126]

Oh, and by them declining to prosecute doesn't "exonerate" Trump. It only means there isn't enough evidence to get a conviction.

[goaded]

@Slingblade1126 Yes, we've now seen the "reasons", in the Barr memo. Notably, the authors didn't ask Mueller's opinion and they dismissed sworn evidence on the basis of Trump's unsworn public statements.

Here's what the judge said about it:
“D. O. J. made a strategic decision to pretend as if the first portion of the memorandum was not there and to avoid acknowledging that what the writers were actually discussing was how to neutralize the impact of the report in the court of public opinion.”

[OddBeMe]

They share the same beleivers. Like religion once you beleive one thing without evidence…

[Anonymous]

Flat earthers of course, Trump supporters tends to be smarter than that. Thought, flat earthers might be less gullible than sjws.

[Anonymous]

Haha you are like Trump! You tear people down. This is a result of your own insecurities.

[Lunatic1]

Flat Earthers by a long shot.

[southernqueen617]

Vegans sorry but it is vegans!

[southernqueen617]

Sorry guys that y'all dont agree with me but vegan is not a very healthy diet at all you are supposed to eat pork, chicken, beef, etc. And studies so that plants DO feel pain

[southernqueen617]

Show*

[Asker]

Vegans are saving the planet, and living a healthy lifestyle that benefits everyone.

Trump and his supporters are trying to Take America back 100 years.

[Agagagagaga]

A vegan mom just killed her baby by malnutrition. If that’s your idea of saving the planet I wonder what it would look like if you weren’t so beneficent.

[Anonymous]

Lol another TDS question.. Grow up.

[JesseJayNeak]

I don’t see anybody supporting Biden

[TotallyAlmost]

Democrats