Its official, Trump now under investigation.

[Charles]

What do you mean by "true"?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

I don't think that Trump's tweets should generally be taken seriously. He seems to use them to provoke reactions, and sarcasm is not out of the question here.

According to Spicer the following is the case with those tweets

"The President is the President of the United States, so they're considered official statements by the President of the United States"

This gives me the impression, we should take them rather seriously as opposed to what you say. You said you would expect White House to say this. And all I wondered was, if you held that the White House statement is true, since - at least in my understanding - it says something rather different than you do. Or are both statements true so that the official statements of the President of the United States should not be taken seriously and seem to be made with the aim of provoking reactions and sarcasm is not out of the question?



I

[JimL]

BTW, to this day, you have yet to explain what you mean by "interfere" and how it actually changed any votes.

Where have you been. The Russians, according to U.S. intelligence interfered by hacking into the DNC, forwarding the contents to wiki leaks, and disseminating, in a timely manner, exagerated and false stories, propaganda via trolls to be picked up by right wing conspiracy sites as well as by Trump himself in order to influence the election in Trumps favor. According to U.S. intelligence, Putin himself ordered this massive influence campaign. How well the campaign worked, how many votes were influenced by it, can't be known, but remember, Trump only won by a few thousands votes each in the 3 states that won the electoral college for him while losing the popular vote by 3 million

[Bill the Cat]

Where have you been. The Russians, according to U.S. intelligence interfered by hacking into the DNC, forwarding the contents to wiki leaks, and disseminating, in a timely manner, exagerated and false stories, propaganda via trolls to be picked up by right wing conspiracy sites as well as by Trump himself in order to influence the election in Trumps favor.

So, propaganda. And that's illegal... how?

According to U.S. intelligence, Putin himself ordered this massive influence campaign. How well the campaign worked, how many votes were influenced by it, can't be known, but remember, Trump only won by a few thousands votes each in the 3 states that won the electoral college for him while losing the popular vote by 3 million

Can't be known, so it's immaterial. Propaganda isn't illegal, therefore, there is nothing to see here.

[One Bad Pig]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truth

Yes. Mr. Spicer's job is to defend the president. I expect him to do that. Thankfully, that's not my job.

And all I wondered was, if you held that the White House statement is true, since - at least in my understanding - it says something rather different than you do. Or are both statements true so that the official statements of the President of the United States should not be taken seriously and seem to be made with the aim of provoking reactions and sarcasm is not out of the question?

It is my opinion that it is quite possible that the President can officially make provocative statements and use sarcasm, he has a long-standing habit of saying provocative statements off-the-cuff, and thus such statements should not be seriously taken strictly literally. It's a dumb way to communicate, and I wish he'd stop.

[Charles]

Yes. Mr. Spicer's job is to defend the president. I expect him to do that. Thankfully, that's not my job.

It is my opinion that it is quite possible that the President can officially make provocative statements and use sarcasm, he has a long-standing habit of saying provocative statements off-the-cuff, and thus such statements should not be seriously taken strictly literally. It's a dumb way to communicate, and I wish he'd stop.

Good answer. Thanks.

[Sparko]

Yeah they should take away Trump's twitter. I think both republicans and democrats can agree on that.

[Charles]

Yeah they should take away Trump's twitter. I think both republicans and democrats can agree on that.

I am neither. But I agree.

[JimL]

So, propaganda. And that's illegal... how?

The crime being investigated is not the propaganda, its the collusion with a foriegn adversary, which is treasoness. Its called a coup!

Can't be known, so it's immaterial. Propaganda isn't illegal, therefore, there is nothing to see here.

See above.

[Charles]

Yeah they should take away Trump's twitter. I think both republicans and democrats can agree on that.

And I don't feel too certain that we can count in the Mountain Man on this... But don't take my word for it.

[Zymologist]

Yeah they should take away Trump's twitter. I think both republicans and democrats can agree on that.

Eh, I'd be ok with taking away everyone's twitter.

[Sparko]

Eh, I'd be ok with taking away everyone's twitter.

I don't even have a twitter acct. I had one once but it kept getting hacked and I never used it so I just deleted it.

[Zymologist]

I don't even have a twitter acct. I had one once but it kept getting hacked and I never used it so I just deleted it.

I've never had a twitter account, and the number of times I've visited the site could probably be counted on my fingers. (Which is still approximately 10 times too many for me.)

[Mountain Man]

The crime being investigated is not the propaganda, its the collusion with a foriegn adversary, which is treasoness. Its called a coup!

See above.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump did collude with Russia*, what's the actual crime? No assumptions or paraphrases, I want you to quote the actual legal statute that was violated.


----------
*There is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.

[JimL]

Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump did collude with Russia*, what's the actual crime? No assumptions or paraphrases, I want you to quote the actual legal statute that was violated.


----------
*There is no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia.

You have to stop listening only to your propaganda sites MM.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ussia-trump-c/

[One Bad Pig]

You have to stop listening only to your propaganda sites MM.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...ussia-trump-c/

Perhaps you should consider your own advice, JimL. Politifact is hardly neutral, and the best thay can come up with is "could" or "might" - and one of their examples would only apply to the foreign entity involved.