• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:775]Trump: ‘I think I’d take’ damaging info on 2020 rival from foreign operatives

ecofarm said:
:2bigcry:
Click to expand...

Did not read thru the thread, but I have no doubt Trump supporters are out in force/denial.

While your system of Govt is different from mine, Canadian, here the leader of the Govt. PM would have been sent off some time ago. The Party would have replaced him/her.
No doubt the same would be true in other 1st world democracies.
 
JANFU said:
Did not read thru the thread, but I have no doubt Trump supporters are out in force/denial.

While your system of Govt is different from mine, Canadian, here the leader of the Govt. PM would have been sent off some time ago. The Party would have replaced him/her.
No doubt the same would be true in other 1st world democracies.
Click to expand...

Would the GOP want to replace him?
 
JANFU said:
Did not read thru the thread, but I have no doubt Trump supporters are out in force/denial.

While your system of Govt is different from mine, Canadian, here the leader of the Govt. PM would have been sent off some time ago. The Party would have replaced him/her.
No doubt the same would be true in other 1st world democracies.
Click to expand...

The GOP has become the party of whores. They'll literally accept anything twump does because he fulfills their fiscal desires.
 
JANFU said:
Did not read thru the thread, but I have no doubt Trump supporters are out in force/denial.

While your system of Govt is different from mine, Canadian, here the leader of the Govt. PM would have been sent off some time ago. The Party would have replaced him/her.
No doubt the same would be true in other 1st world democracies.
Click to expand...

Yeah- but you guys don't elevt your government leader. He wins a vote from his fellow party members, wins his own riding, and hopes the rest of the country elects enough fellow party members.
 
ecofarm said:
Would the GOP want to replace him?
Click to expand...

Nope. just my opinion on how these tactics, by both parties would be repugnant to Canadians.

Myself I am not for Impeachment. It provides him fodder for his base.

Now the Dems, with half a football team running for President, I wonder if they will get their crap together?
 
dobieg said:
Comical considering every liberal out there had zero problem with Clinton using a British agent to get dirt from Russia on their political opponent.


I mean if you want us to continue laughing at your side, keeping feigning your horror over something your side is the master of.
Click to expand...

This is the only defense the right has, to keep trying to make something that was done legally into something dark and illegal and it most certainly was not. It's all the right has, there's no other way to defend the indefensible words of Trump himself. The argument is without basis and has been refuted at least 20 times on these threads. It's tiresome and laughable, but it's all they have.

giphy.gif
 
JANFU said:
Nope. just my opinion on how these tactics, by both parties would be repugnant to Canadians.

Myself I am not for Impeachment. It provides him fodder for his base.

Now the Dems, with half a football team running for President, I wonder if they will get their crap together?
Click to expand...

I don't know all the details of how a parliamentary system works. If the controlling (so to speak) party doesn't want to change PM, they don't have to, right?

So even if the US was a parliamentary system, wouldn't the GOP themselves be the only way to replace him?
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The GOP has become the party of whores. They'll literally accept anything twump does because he fulfills their fiscal desires.
Click to expand...

Rep Party for the 16 run were fractured, but the majority were pissed off at the lies and elites.

Dems went thru a similar thing in the 16 primaries, which showed the same opinions as Bernie struck a tone within the base.

In both parties this anger, disgust, dissatisfaction with their respective parties was clear before 16 and the Dems crowning of Hillary. It began long before the 16 elections.

Lastly and more on topic, what actions, statements Trump makes, no longer that surprising, truth be told it is more tiring, as he can do as he wishes.
 
ecofarm said:
I don't know all the details of how a parliamentary system works. If the controlling (so to speak) party doesn't want to change PM, they don't have to, right?

So even if the US was a parliamentary system, wouldn't the GOP themselves be the only way to replace him?
Click to expand...

Yes, my bad for not clarifying that. PM would resign, call for a leadership race and or other options

But yes it would take the party to replace, in this case, the GOP and impeachment.
 
lurchadams said:
Flynn and Manafort are both criminals. Flynn was conspiring with a foreign power to kidnap and expedite a person living in the U.S. Manafort shilled for a Putin-friendly piece of **** dictator in the Ukraine.

These guys are just two examples of the human sewage that trump surrounds himself with. It's a huge problem and I'm praying the American people are smart enough to vanquish the cartoon mob-boss and his unmerry band of poop stains in 2020.

Hope all is well with you. I get to actually spend my first week at home in 4 weeks. Then it's back to San Antonio the week after next again.
Click to expand...

You had better prepare yourself for 5 1/2 more year of Trump. :lol:


I have had three medical conventions in San Antonio in the last 4 years thankfully its in Arlington this year. I like San Antonio but its nice to be able to stay home.I asked my son what he is benching now. Its 375lb 3 times. How is the diet going?.
 
Cougarbear said:
So, when she hired Fusion, Fusion then worked for HER. It's like when you hire a maid, she works for YOU. Hillary is 100% responsible for what Fusion did. She's guilty. And, she knew what Fusion and the DNC were doing. She knew what Steele was doing also. She knew he was conspiring and colluding with the Russians. And, even if she didn't, she paid for Steele to do so. She is still part of the conspiracy. And, Conspiracies are illegal. Lock her up!!! :sword:
Click to expand...


You are confused, the law says that the "thing of value" must be a gift from a foreign agent, or a foreign national.


It's perfectly legal for a candidate to hire a foreign firm to do oppo work.

But, if someone, say, a Russian, offers you gifts that will help you win an office, we can see the color of this portrait if vastly different.

Here, the "oppo" from Russia is a subterfuge to commit espionage, to offer you the work product of that espionage, in the hopes that your presidency will benefit Russia, and your accepting that gift, even considering it, looking at it, implicates you in a serious crime


Moreover, Steele took his work to the FBI, to McCain, and others, It was floating around intel circles in congress for months. It's called "public domain".

Apparently you, nor Trump and his ilk, are unable to grasp the difference.

Ken Dilanian on Twitter: "This is a bizarre line of argument. British citizen Christopher Steele was hired by an American firm which had been hired by Democrats. That was just as legal as the Trump campaign hiring British firm Cambridge Analytica. The issue is foreign contributions, not foreign vendors.… https://t.co/ROE7eTaDwu"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Idiometer said:
I agree, I'm just weary of trying to explain that to the Trumpsters on this forum.
Click to expand...



The are conflating vendors with accepting a thing of value from a foreign national in a conspiracy to aid and abet espionage.

I'ts amazing how they can't see the difference. You have morons on Fox TV spouting the same nonsense.

In my view, both Trump and his son committed a crime. Trump wen he asked Russia on TV to give Hillary's emails to the media, and Don Jr when he wrote "if what you say is true I love it", that is the welcoming of a gift from a foreign national whose purpose of dirt on an opponent.

The defense they are saying about Don is that he didn't know better.

My view is that, when we are taking about a candidacy for the presidency of the united states, we are in the big leagues now, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Russia wasn't dishing dirt on Clinton. The claim is that they had stuff f that would be embarrassing to her.
They were dishing dirt on Trump.
Click to expand...


Why are you telling me this? I did not say Russia was dishing dirt in Clinton
 
Athanasius68 said:
Trump broke no law either.
Click to expand...

Trump is not out of the woods, though I know you believe that he is.

Okay, the facts:

1. He said he'd take gifts from Russia, oppo research if they had it.


2. His son said he would welcome a gift from Russia, oppo dirt on Hillary.

3. Trump invited Russia on TV to commit espionage and provide the work product to the press.

4. Trump obstructed justice.


In the mean time, Trump,and the AG, are continuing to obstruct justice.

The above are facts. In time, there will be much more bad **** that Trump has done and will do, as the many current investigations bear fruit.

Where is this train headed, hmmmm?

Ask yourself that.
 
OscarLevant said:
The are conflating vendors with accepting a thing of value from a foreign national in a conspiracy to aid and abet espionage.

I'ts amazing how they can't see the difference. You have morons on Fox TV spouting the same nonsense.

In my view, both Trump and his son committed a crime. Trump wen he asked Russia on TV to give Hillary's emails to the media, and Don Jr when he wrote "if what you say is true I love it", that is the welcoming of a gift from a foreign national whose purpose of dirt on an opponent.

The defense they are saying about Don is that he didn't know better.

My view is that, when we are taking about a candidacy for the presidency of the united states, we are in the big leagues now, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Click to expand...

I read this also, and sounds stupid because even if one tries to argue that Trump Jr is a moron and a person who did not have political experience (both true), he informed Kushner (supposedly smart) and a VERY experienced campaign manager (Manafort).

I think the real issue that saved Jr was that the Russians who sought the meeting probably overplayed their credentials with the Russian government in order to secure a meeting at the Trump Tower, but went there having an agenda of their own which they wanted to discuss.

So, this was more like the equivalent of a suspected drug dealer calling me to tell me that he has some good staff to give me and after I arrange a meeting with him I discover that he comes with nothing other than a pack of cigarettes and he just uses the meeting to ask for a favor. In such case, even if the police becomes aware of the meeting and my intentions, as long as I did not get anything from the meeting, there is no crime.

Of course, my behavior would still make me look like a crook....
 
Last edited:
SLC said:
You had better prepare yourself for 5 1/2 more year of Trump. :lol:


I have had three medical conventions in San Antonio in the last 4 years thankfully its in Arlington this year. I like San Antonio but its nice to be able to stay home.I asked my son what he is benching now. Its 375lb 3 times. How is the diet going?.
Click to expand...

Wow, your son moves a lot of iron! Good for him!

I fell off the diet wagon today a little with carbs and sugar but will be back on it tomorrow. I took my BP today - a year ago I was, "in the red" as far as being in the danger zone for hypertension and now I'm at the bottom of the "prehypertension" graph, which still sounds bad, but it's a huge improvement for me. Also, my resting heart rate is down from the low 80's a year ago to 57. So all-in-all, pretty good, thanks for asking :) Of course, this will all change if trump wins reelection :)
 
HumblePi said:
This is the only defense the right has, to keep trying to make something that was done legally into something dark and illegal and it most certainly was not. It's all the right has, there's no other way to defend the indefensible words of Trump himself. The argument is without basis and has been refuted at least 20 times on these threads. It's tiresome and laughable, but it's all they have.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Evidently, its not "dark" when a Democrat receives information about a political opponent from foreigners.
It would only be " dark" when a Republican receives information about a political opponent from a foreigner.
 
OscarLevant said:
Trump is not out of the woods, though I know you believe that he is.

Okay, the facts:

1. He said he'd take gifts from Russia, oppo research if they had it.


2. His son said he would welcome a gift from Russia, oppo dirt on Hillary.

3. Trump invited Russia on TV to commit espionage and provide the work product to the press.

4. Trump obstructed justice.


In the mean time, Trump,and the AG, are continuing to obstruct justice.

The above are facts. In time, there will be much more bad **** that Trump has done and will do, as the many current investigations bear fruit.

Where is this train headed, hmmmm?

Ask yourself that.
Click to expand...

1. Trump didn't say 'Russia' the other day, he said Norway, a country which is not an adversarial to the USA.
It continues to be true that there is no hypothetical of Mrs. Clinton receiving information from Russia.
It continues to remain mysterious while actually
Receiving information from Russia gets one a pass.

2. As above-- Mrs. Clinton actually received research on Trump from Russia; Trunp did not receive research on Clinton from Russia.

3. Russia did not need Trump's approval to hack. And as Mueller said, they didn't receive any support from the campaign.

4. Nah- he didn't. It's hypothetical obstruction. Nine off them are nonsense, the other is weak.
 
Praxas said:
So you would be fine with Chinese hackers getting any “true” dirt on trump and then giving it to the dem candidate?
Click to expand...

Are you actually saying that the Steele dossier was fake dirt?

Well, Thank you for finally admitting what the rest of the rational world already knew...
 
Athanasius68 said:
Evidently, its not "dark" when a Democrat receives information about a political opponent from foreigners.
It would only be " dark" when a Republican receives information about a political opponent from a foreigner.
Click to expand...

You are intentionally leaving specific word or words out and those particular words change everything as far as context and meaning. By omitting either the word "adversarial" or "hostile" you're changing the intention. If you're referring to sources of Christopher Steele who is a Brit from Britain that is a ally and friend to the US, then the circumstances are entirely different. Christopher Steele was paid for his dossier, he didn't want something other than to be paid with money. He had no personal vendetta, he had no particular preference for candidates, he was doing a job that he was paid to do.

Being a former British Intelligence officer for many years, he had many foreign sources and contracts from countries that were either hostile or sympathetic with the US. But the bottom line here is what was Christopher Steele's goal? His goal was to produce a result, a dossier. This is what he was paid to do and I'm sure he was paid quite well. The suggestion that this type of intelligence gathering is in any way the same as taking information directly from a hostile, adversarial foreign government offering their information solely to help one specific presidential candidate win the presidency, is not even close to being the same thing.

People believe that Trump hated John McCain because he gave a 'thumbs-down no' vote on the skinny repeal of the ACA. This was only partially the reason. Trump hated McCain for many reasons, including the fact that he was always more of a man and patriot than Trump will ever be considering his imprisonment in Vietnam. John McCain played a key role in the report becoming a highly important part of the Russia inquiry. John McCain met Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow, who had spent 10 years in Russia and is highly respected for his knowledge of Russian affairs, at a security conference in Halifax, Canada.

The Steele dossier was discussed. Sir Andrew stressed to McCain that he had not read the dossier, but vouched for Steele’s professionalism and integrity. McCain then sent an emissary to London who picked up the dossier from an intermediary acting on behalf of Steele. The senator then personally took the material to James Comey, the head of the FBI.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Yes-- anonymous sources. He did indicate anonymous government sources for some.
Click to expand...

Like I said, prove that.

Regardless, the Clinton Campaign did not hire Steele, and Steele did not offer to give anything directly to the campaign. He did offer his information to the FBI, however.
 
Athanasius68 said:
1. Trump didn't say 'Russia' the other day, he said Norway, a country which is not an adversarial to the USA.
It continues to be true that there is no hypothetical of Mrs. Clinton receiving information from Russia.
It continues to remain mysterious while actually
Receiving information from Russia gets one a pass.

2. As above-- Mrs. Clinton actually received research on Trump from Russia; Trunp did not receive research on Clinton from Russia.

3. Russia did not need Trump's approval to hack. And as Mueller said, they didn't receive any support from the campaign.

4. Nah- he didn't. It's hypothetical obstruction. Nine off them are nonsense, the other is weak.
Click to expand...
Once again, we see the conflation of getting something that originated from People that happened to be Russians with getting something from the Russian government. Steele apparently got information, in secret, from Russians who had information. He didn’t disclose their identities. Trump got information from the Russian government and knew it. The Russian government didn’t do it because they wanted better government in America. They did it to curry favor with Trump, should he win. They undisclosed Russians who provided Steele with information were in no position to receive favors.

Thus, what Steele did on behalf of the DNC was neither illegal nor unethical. What Trump did was illegal and unpatriotic.
 
j-mac said:
Are you actually saying that the Steele dossier was fake dirt?

Well, Thank you for finally admitting what the rest of the rational world already knew...
Click to expand...

It’s funny how so many trump supporters have reading comprehension issues. Nope try again and this time without lying as you are wrong since I said no such thing. There is a reason CON is in CONservative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom