Evidence 'more than circumstantial' that Trump team colluded with Russia, says Congressman leading investigation

WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee claimed Wednesday evening that he has seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that associates of Fake President Trump colluded with Russia while the Kremlin attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Ranking Member on the committee, was asked by Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press Daily" whether or not he only has a circumstantial case.

"Actually no, Chuck," he said. "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."

Questioned whether or not he has seen direct evidence of collusion, Schiff responded, "I don't want to get into specifics but I will say that there is evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of an investigation."

This is a shift from Sunday's "Meet the Press" interview, when Schiff only went as far as to say that there was circumstantial evidence of collusion and "direct evidence" of deception.

The Trump campaign and the White House have repeatedly denied that Trump's associates were at all connected to any activities related to Russia's attempts to influence the last election.

On Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed that an investigation into the Trump campaign's ties to Russia had been ongoing since July. Comey said the probe was included in the agency's investigation into what the U.S. intelligence community concluded was an attempt by Russia to interfere with the 2016 election with the purpose of helping Trump win.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/schiff-more-circumstantial-evidence-trump-associates-colluded-russia-n737446

Just watching his body language says a lot

It was the American people who decided the result of the presidential election...!

Tommy Monk wrote:It was the American people who decided the result of the presidential election...!

Not so.  It was an elite council of select individuals, collectively known as the electoral college.  The popular election in the US is advisory only.

America is not a democracy.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It was the American people who decided the result of the presidential election...!

Not so.  It was an elite council of select individuals, collectively known as the electoral college.  The popular election in the US is advisory only.

America is not a democracy.

But you weren't saying that when Obama won two terms... and I bet you wouldn't be saying that if silly clinton had won this time round either...!?


If you are going to complain about a system... be consistent in making your arguments... don't just start windbagging when you don't like the result this time round...!

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not so.  It was an elite council of select individuals, collectively known as the electoral college.  The popular election in the US is advisory only.

America is not a democracy.

But you weren't saying that when Obama won two terms... and I bet you wouldn't be saying that if silly clinton had won this time round either...!?

If you are going to complain about a system... be consistent in making your arguments... don't just start windbagging when you don't like the result this time round...!

Actually yes, I am saying that about Clinton and Obama.  The reason why it wasn't a big issue with Bill Clinton and Obama is that the popular vote went with the electoral college, so the difference didn't distinguish itself.

You are quick to judge, and not wait for the whole truth.  That's an issue with all conservatives...lazy in thought, too soon to their conclusions.  But listen and learn.

Yes, truth be told, the US Constitution was born in 1789, when George III was still ruling Britain and Tsarina Catherine II (the Great) was running Russia.  It was an age of executives being declared from the top, not from the voters.  The US Constitution declares that the president is selected, not as the result of a popular vote, but as the choice of a college of electors, which come from the states.  Thus, there are a variety of ways that a president can be anointed.  Some states have gone for presidential elections, but it is not mandatory.  Some states appoint super-delegates.  Suffice it to say that the presidential elections are, overall, mostly advisory, and the actual choice is by the college of electors.

Hence, the college of electors can select someone not of the voters' choice.  Recently, George Bush was selected (2000) with a majority of the voters going for the other candidate, and Donald Trump was selected (2016) despite the other candidate (Ms. Clinton) receiving more than 3-million more votes.  That's two of the last three.  It's not uncommon.

So, you see, America is not a democracy.  It grew out of the British Empire, and there was actually a time when the founders approached Bonnie Prince Charles (Stuart) to be the king of the United States.  He declined, and so they went with an elitist body, called the electoral college, that chooses the Chief Executive.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

But you weren't saying that when Obama won two terms... and I bet you wouldn't be saying that if silly clinton had won this time round either...!?

If you are going to complain about a system... be consistent in making your arguments... don't just start windbagging when you don't like the result this time round...!

Actually yes, I am saying that about Clinton and Obama.  The reason why it wasn't a big issue with Bill Clinton and Obama is that the popular vote went with the electoral college, so the difference didn't distinguish itself.

You are quick to judge, and not wait for the whole truth.  That's an issue with all conservatives...lazy in thought, too soon to their conclusions.  But listen and learn.

Yes, truth be told, the US Constitution was born in 1789, when George III was still ruling Britain and Tsarina Catherine II (the Great) was running Russia.  It was an age of executives being declared from the top, not from the voters.  The US Constitution declares that the president is selected, not as the result of a popular vote, but as the choice of a college of electors, which come from the states.  Thus, there are a variety of ways that a president can be anointed.  Some states have gone for presidential elections, but it is not mandatory.  Some states appoint super-delegates.  Suffice it to say that the presidential elections are, overall, mostly advisory, and the actual choice is by the college of electors.

Hence, the college of electors can select someone not of the voters' choice.  Recently, George Bush was selected (2000) with a majority of the voters going for the other candidate, and Donald Trump was selected (2016) despite the other candidate (Ms. Clinton) receiving more than 3-million more votes.  That's two of the last three.  It's not uncommon.

So, you see, America is not a democracy.  It grew out of the British Empire, and there was actually a time when the founders approached Bonnie Prince Charles (Stuart) to be the king of the United States.  He declined, and so they went with an elitist body, called the electoral college, that chooses the Chief Executive.

So, what are you, with all your talents, achievements and knowledge that you tell us about, doing to bring democracy to America? Or are you too busy peeing up the back yard wall on here?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

But you weren't saying that when Obama won two terms... and I bet you wouldn't be saying that if silly clinton had won this time round either...!?

If you are going to complain about a system... be consistent in making your arguments... don't just start windbagging when you don't like the result this time round...!

Actually yes, I am saying that about Clinton and Obama.  The reason why it wasn't a big issue with Bill Clinton and Obama is that the popular vote went with the electoral college, so the difference didn't distinguish itself.

You are quick to judge, and not wait for the whole truth.  That's an issue with all conservatives...lazy in thought, too soon to their conclusions.  But listen and learn.

Yes, truth be told, the US Constitution was born in 1789, when George III was still ruling Britain and Tsarina Catherine II (the Great) was running Russia.  It was an age of executives being declared from the top, not from the voters.  The US Constitution declares that the president is selected, not as the result of a popular vote, but as the choice of a college of electors, which come from the states.  Thus, there are a variety of ways that a president can be anointed.  Some states have gone for presidential elections, but it is not mandatory.  Some states appoint super-delegates.  Suffice it to say that the presidential elections are, overall, mostly advisory, and the actual choice is by the college of electors.

Hence, the college of electors can select someone not of the voters' choice.  Recently, George Bush was selected (2000) with a majority of the voters going for the other candidate, and Donald Trump was selected (2016) despite the other candidate (Ms. Clinton) receiving more than 3-million more votes.  That's two of the last three.  It's not uncommon.

So, you see, America is not a democracy.  It grew out of the British Empire, and there was actually a time when the founders approached Bonnie Prince Charles (Stuart) to be the king of the United States.  He declined, and so they went with an elitist body, called the electoral college, that chooses the Chief Executive.

No need for the history lesson...

The system you have elected Obama and bill clinton too... it doesn't matter whether silly clinton got 3 million more votes as it was only one region... we've been through this before.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually yes, I am saying that about Clinton and Obama.  The reason why it wasn't a big issue with Bill Clinton and Obama is that the popular vote went with the electoral college, so the difference didn't distinguish itself.

You are quick to judge, and not wait for the whole truth.  That's an issue with all conservatives...lazy in thought, too soon to their conclusions.  But listen and learn.

Yes, truth be told, the US Constitution was born in 1789, when George III was still ruling Britain and Tsarina Catherine II (the Great) was running Russia.  It was an age of executives being declared from the top, not from the voters.  The US Constitution declares that the president is selected, not as the result of a popular vote, but as the choice of a college of electors, which come from the states.  Thus, there are a variety of ways that a president can be anointed.  Some states have gone for presidential elections, but it is not mandatory.  Some states appoint super-delegates.  Suffice it to say that the presidential elections are, overall, mostly advisory, and the actual choice is by the college of electors.

Hence, the college of electors can select someone not of the voters' choice.  Recently, George Bush was selected (2000) with a majority of the voters going for the other candidate, and Donald Trump was selected (2016) despite the other candidate (Ms. Clinton) receiving more than 3-million more votes.  That's two of the last three.  It's not uncommon.

So, you see, America is not a democracy.  It grew out of the British Empire, and there was actually a time when the founders approached Bonnie Prince Charles (Stuart) to be the king of the United States.  He declined, and so they went with an elitist body, called the electoral college, that chooses the Chief Executive.

No need for the history lesson...

The system you have elected Obama and bill clinton too... it doesn't matter whether silly clinton got 3 million more votes as it was only one region... we've been through this before.

Yes, and I daresay you're just as dense as ever. You think that because the system works sometimes, it ain't broke? By that logic, one shouldn't fix a flat tyre because there are still three good tyres on the vehicle.

But let's not worry about what's broken. The simple fact is that the American executive is not chosen by a democracy. Structurally, the choice is by a system of elites (electors), not a plurality of votes. It's irrelevant that Obama and Bill Clinton won both.

The point I was making is that, as far as I'm aware, your presidential election is decided by a regional basis and the one who wins most of these regions is the one who gets to be president!?


You have one region that is very high populated and has a heavy large support for democrats... california... but that is only one REGION of the US... and only one of the small number of regions that returned a hillary result... the vast majority of regions returned a trump result...

And you seem to think that the system has only worked when a democrat president is elected...?

Tommy Monk wrote:And you seem to think that the system has only worked when a democrat president is elected...?

Not at all. You are looking for ways to wiggle out of your poor argument, I realize. But I got ya firmly by the tail, and I won't let go.

It's not a question of whether the system works. It's a question of how the system works. The American political system is not a democracy. The American president is chosen by a group of elites, who can and often do defy the popular will. It has happened with two of the last three presidents, and it appears to be happening with increasing frequency.

Miffs2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Actually yes, I am saying that about Clinton and Obama.  The reason why it wasn't a big issue with Bill Clinton and Obama is that the popular vote went with the electoral college, so the difference didn't distinguish itself.

You are quick to judge, and not wait for the whole truth.  That's an issue with all conservatives...lazy in thought, too soon to their conclusions.  But listen and learn.

Yes, truth be told, the US Constitution was born in 1789, when George III was still ruling Britain and Tsarina Catherine II (the Great) was running Russia.  It was an age of executives being declared from the top, not from the voters.  The US Constitution declares that the president is selected, not as the result of a popular vote, but as the choice of a college of electors, which come from the states.  Thus, there are a variety of ways that a president can be anointed.  Some states have gone for presidential elections, but it is not mandatory.  Some states appoint super-delegates.  Suffice it to say that the presidential elections are, overall, mostly advisory, and the actual choice is by the college of electors.

Hence, the college of electors can select someone not of the voters' choice.  Recently, George Bush was selected (2000) with a majority of the voters going for the other candidate, and Donald Trump was selected (2016) despite the other candidate (Ms. Clinton) receiving more than 3-million more votes.  That's two of the last three.  It's not uncommon.

So, you see, America is not a democracy.  It grew out of the British Empire, and there was actually a time when the founders approached Bonnie Prince Charles (Stuart) to be the king of the United States.  He declined, and so they went with an elitist body, called the electoral college, that chooses the Chief Executive.

So, what are you, with all your  talents, achievements and knowledge that you tell us about, doing to bring democracy to America? Or are you too busy peeing up the back yard wall on here?

This is not about me, nems. You never have learned that, have you? Methinks certain people frighten you.

Nems can't help herself...

Whenever some of her flophead chums are seen to be struggling anywhere on here, in she swans to attack the usual opponents --  even if it's on unrelated threads like this..

Nems only ever pops up around here to 'stir the pot'.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Nems can't help herself...

Whenever some of her flophead chums are seen to be struggling anywhere on here, in she swans to attack the usual opponents --  even if it's on unrelated threads like this..

Nems only ever pops up around here to 'stir the pot'.

Like you swanned in just to attack Nems?

Raggamuffin wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Nems can't help herself...

Whenever some of her flophead chums are seen to be struggling anywhere on here, in she swans to attack the usual opponents --  even if it's on unrelated threads like this..

Nems only ever pops up around here to 'stir the pot'.

Like you swanned in just to attack Nems?

What do you think brought nems in? I mean, I lov her...we've been buddies a long time. But she sees one of her RW floppy friends drowning in a bad argument, and she can't resist trying to give him artificial respiration.

I don't mind...I just remind her where the right direction of the discussion is pointed.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It was the American people who decided the result of the presidential election...!

Not so.  It was an elite council of select individuals, collectively known as the electoral college.  The popular election in the US is advisory only.

America is not a democracy.

Are you suggesting that those individuals voted contrary to what the people voted for?

You have "advisory" elections? That sounds like the anti-Brexit lot.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Like you swanned in just to attack Nems?

What do you think brought nems in?  I mean, I lov her...we've been buddies a long time.  But she sees one of her RW floppy friends drowning in a bad argument, and she can't resist trying to give him artificial respiration.

I don't mind...I just remind her where the right direction of the discussion is pointed.

Which one posted in this thread?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And you seem to think that the system has only worked when a democrat president is elected...?

Not at all.  You are looking for ways to wiggle out of your poor argument, I realize.  But I got ya firmly by the tail, and I won't let go.

It's not a question of whether the system works.  It's a question of how the system works.  The American political system is not a democracy.  The American president is chosen by a group of elites, who can and often do defy the popular will.  It has happened with two of the last three presidents, and it appears to be happening with increasing frequency.

I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything...!!!


This was my previous post...

"The point I was making is that, as far as I'm aware, your presidential election is decided by a regional basis and the one who wins most of these regions is the one who gets to be president!?


You have one region that is very high populated and has a heavy large support for democrats... california... but that is only one REGION of the US... and only one of the small number of regions that returned a hillary result... the vast majority of regions returned a trump result..."



Now... can you explain what is wrong with what I wrote as my understanding of the system...?


And explain the bit (you said) that I highlighted...?


I'm presuming that you are suggesting that bush and trump are the two out of last three presidents to win, by the will of the 'elites who choose', that you talk of...?

And by this you are inferring that these 'elites' have a bias for choosing Republican candidates as president...?

So... how come democrat Obama won two terms...!?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What do you think brought nems in?  I mean, I lov her...we've been buddies a long time.  But she sees one of her RW floppy friends drowning in a bad argument, and she can't resist trying to give him artificial respiration.

I don't mind...I just remind her where the right direction of the discussion is pointed.

Which one posted in this thread?

Nems.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not at all.  You are looking for ways to wiggle out of your poor argument, I realize.  But I got ya firmly by the tail, and I won't let go.

It's not a question of whether the system works.  It's a question of how the system works.  The American political system is not a democracy.  The American president is chosen by a group of elites, who can and often do defy the popular will.  It has happened with two of the last three presidents, and it appears to be happening with increasing frequency.

I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything...!!!


This was my previous post...

"The point I was making is that, as far as I'm aware, your presidential election is decided by a regional basis and the one who wins most of these regions is the one who gets to be president!?

You have one region that is very high populated and has a heavy large support for democrats... california... but that is only one REGION of the US... and only one of the small number of regions that returned a hillary result... the vast majority of regions returned a trump result..."

Now... can you explain what is wrong with what I wrote as my understanding of the system...?

And explain the bit (you said) that I highlighted...?

I'm presuming that you are suggesting that bush and trump are the two out of last three presidents to win, by the will of the 'elites who choose', that you talk of...?

And by this you are inferring that these 'elites' have a bias for choosing Republican candidates as president...?

So... how come democrat Obama won two terms...!?

There are too many conversations going on here.  Let me address them one-by-one.

First, America is not a democracy.  The president (Chief Executive) is not elected by a popular vote of the people, but by an elite known as the electoral college.  Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution.

Second, just because the electoral college has worked to favor your RW Republican favorites,  does not mean that I think it is a RW bias. It has a racist origin, in that it pretended to give weight to black slave to the tune of 2/3 vote. But that is in the past.  My only point is that it is an undemocratic process.

Third, there is no regional bias.  The electoral college works the same way throughout the system.  My point is, and has only been, that the US is not a democratic country.  How many ways do I have to show this?

We started out by showing that the US asked Charles III (Stuart) to be the King of the US, and we end up by proving that two of the last three presidents have lost the popular vote.  The Chief Executive was never intended to be chosen by popular vote, and Lo, it ends up that that what they intended...is the case!

Obama?  Clinton?  Trump? Bush?  The participants are negligible...that's the way it is.

What part of plain facts don't you understand?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Which one posted in this thread?

Nems.

I mean which one of her "floppy" friends posted in this thread? You claimed that she posted to give them "artificial respiration".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nems.

I mean which one of her "floppy" friends posted in this thread? You claimed that she posted to give them "artificial respiration".

The one that needed artificial respiration at the time was tommy. He was losing the plot on his own point.

Trump is YOUR President whether you like it or not, Best explain that to Lurker, you know him, the one who spams this forum daily.

nicko wrote:Trump is YOUR President whether you like it or not,   Best explain that to Lurker,  you know him,   the one who spams this forum daily.

Why? What is your point?

Are you surprised that on an American newsy, political site, there would be a lot of chatter about so unorthodox and troubled a chief executive? Hey...a lot is going on. Russian agents? Failed legislative attempts? Unconstitutional executive orders? Conflicts of interest? So much to write about...so little time.

And Lurker's doing you a great kindness, giving you condensed and amusing insights into the politics. You should be thanking him.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean which one of her "floppy" friends posted in this thread? You claimed that she posted to give them "artificial respiration".

The one that needed artificial respiration at the time was tommy.  He was losing the plot on his own point.

I didn't know that Tommy was Nems' mate, or that he's "floppy".

Why don't you and all the other "snowflakes"accept that Trump won and instead of whining like a lot of girls get behind him and work together to make America "great"

nicko wrote:Why don't you and all the other "snowflakes"accept that Trump won and instead of whining like a lot of girls get behind him and work together to make America "great"  

I think that men whine more than girls actually nicko.

They certainly do here Raggs, never seen such a load of whingers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The one that needed artificial respiration at the time was tommy.  He was losing the plot on his own point.

I didn't know that Tommy was Nems' mate, or that he's "floppy".

Perhaps you didn't know that you and nicko are in the same batch. It's called right-wingers. Capitalist cupcakes. War-mongers. People-haters. Pick your specialty.

Perhaps you don't know that your spouting bollocks, [again]

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I didn't know that Tommy was Nems' mate, or that he's "floppy".

Perhaps you didn't know that you and nicko are in the same batch.  It's called right-wingers.  Capitalist cupcakes.  War-mongers.  People-haters.  Pick your specialty.

Well I admit to having a few shares - not sure if that makes me a "capitalist cupcake". I don't think I've ever declared war on anyone. I'm not really a social butterfly, but I'm not sure that makes me a people hater.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Perhaps you didn't know that you and nicko are in the same batch.  It's called right-wingers.  Capitalist cupcakes.  War-mongers.  People-haters.  Pick your specialty.

Well I admit to having a few shares - not sure if that makes me a "capitalist cupcake". I don't think I've ever declared war on anyone. I'm not really a social butterfly, but I'm not sure that makes me a people hater.

RW'rs are of several stripes, so I don't claim every RW'r is a collectivity of all conservative values.  But, you'll find plenty to go around, according to the individual taste.

You may not be a "capitalist cupcake", but you do have an affinity for property rights over human rights.  For example, you won't mourn an inexcusably murdered black man, but you're all up in arms about windows broken or vehicles destroyed in demonstrations.  As I say, there's plenty in there for all kinds of conservatives.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well I admit to having a few shares - not sure if that makes me a "capitalist cupcake". I don't think I've ever declared war on anyone. I'm not really a social butterfly, but I'm not sure that makes me a people hater.

RW'rs are of several stripes, so I don't claim every RW'r is a collectivity of all of them.  But, you'll find plenty to go around.

You may not be a "capitalist cupcake", but you do have an affinity for property rights over human rights.  For example, you won't mourn an inexcusably murdered black man, but you're all up in arms about windows broken or vehicles destroyed in demonstrations.  As I say, there's plenty in there for all kinds of conservatives.

I objected to the destruction of vehicles belonging to people who had nothing to do with the death of a black man. What is wrong with that? Would you like your car to be destroyed even though you did nothing wrong? It was a separate issue to the death of a black man, but you talk as if the people deserved to have their cars destroyed by yobs.

Anyway, I'm now a Zionist apparently. Does that make me right wing or left wing?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

RW'rs are of several stripes, so I don't claim every RW'r is a collectivity of all of them.  But, you'll find plenty to go around.

You may not be a "capitalist cupcake", but you do have an affinity for property rights over human rights.  For example, you won't mourn an inexcusably murdered black man, but you're all up in arms about windows broken or vehicles destroyed in demonstrations.  As I say, there's plenty in there for all kinds of conservatives.

I objected to the destruction of vehicles belonging to people who had nothing to do with the death of a black man. What is wrong with that? Would you like your car to be destroyed even though you did nothing wrong? It was a separate issue to the death of a black man, but you talk as if the people deserved to have their cars destroyed by yobs.

Anyway, I'm now a Zionist apparently. Does that make me right wing or left wing?

Donno.    I haven't figured out that one.

I don't fault you for having political preferences.  I'm merely showing you that you do have them, and which way they lean. You seem to have more concern for property rights than people rights.

However, I do criticize certain political preferences directly.  As to that, I say, if the shoe fits...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I objected to the destruction of vehicles belonging to people who had nothing to do with the death of a black man. What is wrong with that? Would you like your car to be destroyed even though you did nothing wrong? It was a separate issue to the death of a black man, but you talk as if the people deserved to have their cars destroyed by yobs.

Anyway, I'm now a Zionist apparently. Does that make me right wing or left wing?

Donno.    I haven't figured out that one.

I don't fault you for having political preferences.  I'm merely showing you that you do have them, and which way they lean.  You seem to have more concern for property rights than people rights.

However, I do criticize certain political preferences directly.  As to that, I say, if the shoe fits...

So if someone trashed your car would you just say - oh well, no matter, that's fair enough?

If objecting to the wanton destruction of cars and property during riots makes someone "right wing", you really need to have another think about it.

nicko wrote:Why don't you and all the other "snowflakes"accept that Trump won and instead of whining like a lot of girls get behind him and work together to make America "great"  

How are people supposed to get behind an idea or a set of ideals that are totally against?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Donno.    I haven't figured out that one.

I don't fault you for having political preferences.  I'm merely showing you that you do have them, and which way they lean.  You seem to have more concern for property rights than people rights.

However, I do criticize certain political preferences directly.  As to that, I say, if the shoe fits...

So if someone trashed your car would you just say - oh well, no matter, that's fair enough?

If objecting to the wanton destruction of cars and property during riots makes someone "right wing", you really need to have another think about it.  

Have you ever heard of comprehensive automobile insurance?

By contrast, there's no insurance remedy that brings back a human life, is there?

nicko wrote:Why don't you and all the other "snowflakes"accept that Trump won and instead of whining like a lot of girls get behind him and work together to make America "great"  

Why?
Did the Right do that for Obama?
Trump himself spent years saying Obama was Kenyan

Plus the Brilliance of Democracy is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT A LEADER!!!
I know men like you fall to your knees and start sucking for any figure of authority but
that freedom you fought against mean people don't have to, the core of freedom is the RIGHT to call your leaders geranium
we don't live in a dictatorship after all. we don't live under Kim Jong il or Mugabe where we have to fear retaliation for calling our nations leader names.

In fact only the mindless dimwits accept an authority which is contradictory to there base morality.
like Trump's base morality of 'Only the rich deserve health care' caused him to never support Obama.
     

Have a  on me. Perfect answer.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So if someone trashed your car would you just say - oh well, no matter, that's fair enough?

If objecting to the wanton destruction of cars and property during riots makes someone "right wing", you really need to have another think about it.  

Have you ever heard of comprehensive automobile insurance?

By contrast, there's no insurance remedy that brings back a human life, is there?

How is that at all relevant?

The point is that you seem to think it's perfectly OK for a random person to trash someone's car for no reason, just because there's a protest going on. Do you think they should be congratulated or something?

Anyway, you know very well that you'd go mad if anyone so much as looked at your winklepickers the wrong way.

veya_victaous wrote:

nicko wrote:Why don't you and all the other "snowflakes"accept that Trump won and instead of whining like a lot of girls get behind him and work together to make America "great"  

Why?
Did the Right do that for Obama?
Trump himself spent years saying Obama was Kenyan

Plus the Brilliance of Democracy is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT A LEADER!!!
I know men like you fall to your knees and start sucking for any figure of authority but
that freedom you fought against mean people don't have to, the core of freedom is the RIGHT to call your leaders geranium
we don't live in a dictatorship after all. we don't live under Kim Jong il or Mugabe where we have to fear retaliation for calling our nations leader names.

In fact only the mindless dimwits accept an authority which is contradictory to there base morality.
like Trump's base morality of 'Only the rich deserve health care' caused him to never support Obama.
     

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Have you ever heard of comprehensive automobile insurance?

By contrast, there's no insurance remedy that brings back a human life, is there?

How is that at all relevant?

The point is that you seem to think it's perfectly OK for a random person to trash someone's car for no reason, just because there's a protest going on. Do you think they should be congratulated or something?

Anyway, you know very well that you'd go mad if anyone so much as looked at your winklepickers the wrong way.  

Not perfectly OK. But as compared to murder, it's insignificant.

nicko wrote:Why don't you and all the other "snowflakes"accept that Trump won and instead of whining like a lot of girls get behind him and work together to make America "great"

Simple. Because everything Trump wants is the opposite of what we want. Don't you understand politics, nicko? You don't "work" with your enemy, to help him make bad things happen.

Good gawd man! They want to throw 24-million Americans off of healthcare. And they were complaining about death squads.

Nicko obviously doesn't actually follow the news --  everything is simply black-and--white to him...
Right-wing/nationalist/capitalist good;  left-wing/Democrat/socialist bad..


Trumps plan to "Make 'Merika Great Ag'in !" :

Less democracy
Less personal freedoms
Less healthcare
Lower education standards
Less environmental protection
Open up forests, national parks and native lands to unfettered 'extractive' industries
(i.e. mining, oil & gas, clear-fell logging..)
Less workplace safety
Tighter border controls
Big corporate tax cuts..
Yep, everyone should certainly  get behind those enlightened "policies"  !!!          

Fuck off dimwit, and stop bringing me into your pathetic rants.

nicko wrote:Fuck off dimwit,   and stop bringing me into your pathetic rants.

But he does have a point, nicko.  Everything Trump wants is the exact opposite of what is good for America.  You don't help a crook to rob a bank, just because you want to show you play nice-nice with other kids.

Make America Great Again, is literally Make America White Again, made over.  It's a slogan created during the Obama administration, and it's code for just what Trump stands for: downtrodden blacks, middle-class pays, no Mexicans and tax-cuts for the rich.  There's literally nothing that Trump wants to do that is good for America.

Why would you help someone like that?

Quill, I really don't care if Trump is POTUS or not, I just object to wolf bringing me into his rants, what I said about Trump was a genuine comment suggesting that you All work together to make America great.. What was wrong about that?

nicko wrote:Quill, I really don't care if Trump is POTUS or not,  I just object to wolf bringing me into his rants, what I said about Trump was a genuine comment suggesting that you All work together to make America great..   What was wrong about that?  

Well, I'm sorry about that.  I don't know what to do about the way you two communicate.

I'm more involved in the point of the thread, most of the time.  There used to be a time when you could express a spirit of pulling together as a nation, but having a black president in a racist nation has crack'd the mirror for Republican America.  

For seven years Republicans have viewed politics as a process of destruction and obfuscation, on the premise that anarchy is best.  But now we find it wasn't a premise, but merely a temper tantrum.  Here, they actually control the whole of government, and they are trying to rule by anarchy, and finding it doesn't work.  How can you be against something when you are the one creating it?  It's like a child destroying everything in his own toy box.

We are finding that the Republican Party in America is irretrievably broken.  I actually predicted this at the end of the Bush administration, when they had broken every promise of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, on which America had been built.  In the orgy that was the Iraq War, they found that Republican America stood for kidnapping, rape, torture, concentration camps and child murder.  The normalizing of those things for Republicans not only changed their self-perception, but gave rise to a kind of self-loathing within their ranks.

As we see now, they are over.  No matter how much cheer leading we Democrats can give them, they have irretrievably changed.  We can't bring them back, if we wanted to.

I would say that the Republican Party as it stands today can never thrive in a country in which racism is considered a bad thing and inclusiveness is a value. I think the right knows that too, and that's why they push so hard against political correctness and why the alt right has done things like trying to get people to cheer for the Empire in Star Wars. They feel the culture of the nation slipping away from them daily, and they're fighting it like hell.

To people like me and Quill, the handwriting has been on the wall for quite some time:



You start out in 1954 by saying, “n---er, n---er, n---er.” By 1968 you can’t say “n---er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “n---er, n---er.”

- Reagan adviser Lee Atwater, 1981

If you parse that statement correctly, Atwater is admitting that conservative positions like lower taxes, states' rights, etc. were never actually about lower taxes or states' rights -- that they were always just more socially acceptable ways of calling for white supremacy.

How many political parties or movements can survive in a society in which it's socially unacceptable to describe their policies as they really are?