Why I Voted For Trump...

[rogue06]

I see you ignored the rest of the post. That trump asked for help is a simple fact. He did it publicly. That Russia tried to help Trump win is also well documented and well known. I did not use the term collusion nor was there anything in my post that implied overt collusion. Neither did I use the term 'conman'. Those are all your words rogue use in response to my post (though originally used in response to JimL), and that context (my post) they do sound a bit unhinged as they have nothing to do with my response.

Perhaps you could take the time to actually address the content of my post more in keeping with your demonstrated capacity for reasoned thought?

Jim

The reason that I ignored it was that this stuff has been explained to you in excruciating details multiple times. For instance, back when Trump "asked" the Russians for help, I (who was still quite unhappy about Trump had just become the Republican nominee) didn't need it explained that his comments were done sarcastically -- as a way of poking the MSM in the eye for mostly showing reluctance in investigating Hillary's missing 33,000 emails. The very fact that he did it in the middle of a public speech that was being recorded ought to be sufficient to clue in even the most jaded Trump hater that this was anything but a serious request. A serious request would be done in a discreet manner and very surreptitiously simply because you do not want everyone knowing about it.

And if you object to how I respond then don't interject yourself into an exchange between others, especially starting off with "I'd call your comments here 'unhinged' in terms of their relation to reality."

[JimL]

The reason that I ignored it was that this stuff has been explained to you in excruciating details multiple times. For instance, back when Trump "asked" the Russians for help, I (who was still quite unhappy about Trump had just become the Republican nominee) didn't need it explained that his comments were done sarcastically -- as a way of poking the MSM in the eye for mostly showing reluctance in investigating Hillary's missing 33,000 emails. The very fact that he did it in the middle of a public speech that was being recorded ought to be sufficient to clue in even the most jaded Trump hater that this was anything but a serious request. A serious request would be done in a discreet manner and very surreptitiously simply because you do not want everyone knowing about it.

And if you object to how I respond then don't interject yourself into an exchange between others, especially starting off with "I'd call your comments here 'unhinged' in terms of their relation to reality."

You still didn't answer to the substance of Jims post. That Trumps request for Russian help was just sarcasm is a subjective belief which of course is the stance his supporters would adopt, but regardless, that doesn't speak to the gist of his post. Trump is an authoritarian who is abusing his office, diregarding the Constitution and undermining democracy here and around the world. He's Putin's boy!

[Mountain Man]

That Russia tried to help Trump win is also well documented and well known.

Fake news. It is "well-documented" that Russia maybe tried to disrupt the election with an underfunded and ineffectual social media campaign, but even the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed up by two staunch Trump critics, admitted that "the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other."

[Terraceth]

Scalia and Rehnquist's decisions, particularly the ones relating to establishment of religion, refute that.

In what way? Please cite some specific examples--vague statements are insufficient.

But let's suppose and accept that some of their decisions do ""interpret" the law to mean something other than what is written, or create new applications for a law that were never intended by the legislature." No judge is completely immune from such a thing--the question is which justices are far less prone to doing it. I would say that, by and large, "conservative" judges are less likely to do so than "liberal" judges.

[Catholicity]

Fake news. It is "well-documented" that Russia maybe tried to disrupt the election with an underfunded and ineffectual social media campaign, but even the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed up by two staunch Trump critics, admitted that "the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other."

What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.

[oxmixmudd]

Fake news. It is "well-documented" that Russia maybe tried to disrupt the election with an underfunded and ineffectual social media campaign, but even the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed up by two staunch Trump critics, admitted that "the goal of our adversaries was not to favor one party over the other."

Even your own article notes:



The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

Source: second link

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

© Copyright Original Source

Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/



The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201



It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



Jim

[oxmixmudd]

The reason that I ignored it was that this stuff has been explained to you in excruciating details multiple times. For instance, back when Trump "asked" the Russians for help, I (who was still quite unhappy about Trump had just become the Republican nominee) didn't need it explained that his comments were done sarcastically -- as a way of poking the MSM in the eye for mostly showing reluctance in investigating Hillary's missing 33,000 emails. The very fact that he did it in the middle of a public speech that was being recorded ought to be sufficient to clue in even the most jaded Trump hater that this was anything but a serious request. A serious request would be done in a discreet manner and very surreptitiously simply because you do not want everyone knowing about it.

And if you object to how I respond then don't interject yourself into an exchange between others, especially starting off with "I'd call your comments here 'unhinged' in terms of their relation to reality."

I would think a person of your skills would take the time to respond to the substance of it - not pick off ancillary issues. It's beneath you to treat a post like some others here might do it. You're better than that - yes?

As to your point, His request for help can not be considered merely sarcastic given the context and his extreme, well voiced desire to pin Clinton's abuse of the email server on her. That was a real request for help from anyone that might have access to the data. And given the infamous Trump meeting hoping to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians - even more so. There is no way that was mere sarcasm. He knew they were looking to help him out. He was giving them a suggestion as to how they might be able to accomplish that goal.

As for your hypothetical about what a serious request would be. This is Donald Trump. "I can shoot someone in broad daylight and my people will still follow me" Donald Trump. Unfortunately and as has been shown time and time again, Donald Trump doesn't need to secure that kind of backdoor help in a discreet manner.



Jim

[Mountain Man]

What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.

Here's the exact quote:

"I will tell you this, Russia, if you're listening: I hiope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will be rewarded mightly by our press."

First of all, Trump made this statement after it was common knowledge that Hillary was using an unauthorized, unsecured private server to conduct classified state business, that the server was compromised by foreign governments, and that Hillary had gone to great lengths to prevent the data on those servers from being scrutinized by law enforcement, including the extraordinary step of using special security software to scrub 30,000 emails from the hard drives and render them unrecoverable AFTER the information had been subpoenaed!

Secondly, does it really have to be pointed out that Trump was making an obvious joke? It was more a poke in the eye of the mainstream media who had been studiously disinterested in the story as well as drawing attention to the fact that Hillary had obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails.

[Mountain Man]

Even your own article notes:



The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

Source: second link

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

© Copyright Original Source

Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/



The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201



It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



Jim

In fact, a deep dive into the Mueller report shows just how weak the Russian conspiracy theory really is, and how little evidence there is to support any of the claims being bandied about by liberals...

None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html

[JimL]

Even your own article notes:



The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

Source: second link

https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

© Copyright Original Source

Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/



The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201



It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



Jim

Not to mention that much of that intel came from a Russian source working for the CIA with close contact to the upper echelons of the Russian government and to Putin himself, a spy who the CIA recently extracted out of Russia for fear of his safety.

[NorrinRadd]

What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.

Death of the humor center of the brain is one of the most distinctive and deleterious effects of TDS.

[Roy]

In what way? Please cite some specific examples--vague statements are insufficient.

Example: the decision that allowing an official monument to bear the 10 commandments, which are relevant to only a few religions, does not pertain to establishment of those religions.

But let's suppose and accept that some of their decisions do ""interpret" the law to mean something other than what is written, or create new applications for a law that were never intended by the legislature." No judge is completely immune from such a thing--the question is which justices are far less prone to doing it. I would say that, by and large, "conservative" judges are less likely to do so than "liberal" judges.

I would disagree - I suspect the tendency to interpret laws according to preference rather than wording is a behaviour control issue, and conservatives tend to impose their values on others more than liberals do.

[Roy]

Sorry, but playing semantics won't save you from your ignorant flub.

As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own naivete and failure to recognise subtle distinctions.

[Mountain Man]

As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own naivete and failure to recognise subtle distinctions.

Right.

It couldn't be that you not being an American genuinely thought the US judiciary had the power to change laws (since, you know, that's what you actually said) and then tried to cover for your ignorance by playing little semantic games.

It would be so much easier if you just said, "Huh, I didn't know that. My mistake."

[Mountain Man]

Example: the decision that allowing an official monument to bear the 10 commandments, which are relevant to only a few religions, does not pertain to establishment of those religions.

That is, in fact, a very literal and conservative interpretation of the First Amendment since the prohibition is against the government from enacting laws that would establish or restrict the practice of religion. There is nothing that says that the government can't recognize or even prefer one religion over the others, just as long as the citizens are not compelled by law to do the same.

So as an example of judicial activism, this is a fail.