David Duke backs Ilahn Omar

[_Dr Exiled]

What does everyone think of the Senate intelligence committee NOT finding any collusion?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-has-uncovered-no-direct-evidence-conspiracy-between-trump-campaign-n970536

[_Markk]

Aaaand here it is. The exact reason why I wrote about futility. You are the embodiment of the American electorate. You can't read with comprehension. You don't really research anything. You're uneducable. You engage in wild veerings within conversations not really understanding the context in the first place, and then acting like a victim when people point out the dumbassery of it all.

This is just an impossible task, and it's the exact reason why someone like Mueller needs to exist and be allowed to do his job. If it were up to people like you your proof could only be presented in a video confession while Trump, his managers, and GOP leadership twisted their handlebar mustaches while tip toeing away with briefcases full of money. Or whatever. Whatever works for your addled brains.

- Doc

LOL Doc...a video confession of what? you keep going back to his guilt, when the folks that had all the classified data said there was/is not proof. You just wasted 2 years of your life on what? If it was to find out Trump is a billionaire playboy, sexist, ruthless businessman...I could've told you that before the election.

There was no Trump/Russian collusion according to the senate Doc...sorry. If Mueller has something, it won't be Russian/Trump collusion, if he did it would be already exposed.

[_Dr Exiled]

How much of Mueller's report will be classified? When will he interview Assange, the center of the supposed collusion?

[_canpakes]

Should we focus a little more on Obama being inept in his statements that the Russians could not interfere with an American election?

I'd be willing to bet some cash that Obama's opinions at the time referred to the form and type that most folks believed 'interference' would typically refer to, with the thought being that most Americans could escape anything aimed at the infrastructure of voting, along with not falling prey to whatever social media shenanigans might be deployed, which were otherwise poorly understood at the time.

In contrast, I don't think that Obama - or most normal folks - realized that so many of their neighbors might be 'sucker enough' to accept Russian money and influence, ditch reason for bogus partisan hackery, then loudly burp up our worst behavioral tendencies and place them on full public display via dress-up and bullshite propaganda, like what is seen in this pic -



But so many Americans were willingly well groomed by Fox News, which spent virtually all of the previous 8 years engaged in the most partisan and polemic dialog possible, and in convincing their audience to reject reason in favor of demonizing the opposition, deploying faux rage as a substitute for dialog, and rationalizing all of it under the banner of a fabricated 'superior morality'.

So, yeah ... there were some ignorant attitudes in Obama's camp that could correctly be accused of underestimating just how moronic, short-sighted, hateful and vulnerable to cheap propaganda so many Americans could end up acting.

Now that we know this, just what more do you need to know about this before we can move on to see who profited from it?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Mark and Exiled,

Did the SIC find evidence exonerating Trump and his campaign?

eta: Of course these two are going to swallow hook, line, and sinker what a GOP Senator put out despite no report being published, yet.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... collusion/

eta2: I'll just remind the casual reader this thread is about a White Nationalist backing a Liberal's right to hate Jews, which morphed into bemoaning partisan politics. Then Super Genius Markk brought up the Russian investigation for some odd reason, in which I posted a relevant comment. Then Markk decided to go full retard and claim something something you can't prove Trump colluded with the Russians, even though his original red herring had nothing to do with that. Now he's gone super retard and decided that Senator Burr making a statement on the SIC's investigation is proof that Trump didn't collude with the Russians. It's clear to me we're dealing with an idiot who can't damned follow the context of a thread.

- Doc

[_Themis]

Yes I want made public, big time.

OK good.

It is the left and folks like you that are playing into Russia's hand...what do you think Putin thinks when he see' Americans saying things like..."Even If Trump is not an agent for Russia..."
? Russia is Laughing at the American people Themis.

????? How does that play into Putin's hand. I can give many examples of Trump doing what Putin wants, like his remarks against NATO. This is precisely what Putin wants.

We now have candidates coming up that want Israel gone, and meat eating will destroy the planet, and no more fossil fuels in twelve years...unbelievable..it is all Trump's fault.

Really? I always thought we had a few of those, but it is not even close to most candidates. The democrat party has never promoted any of the three positions. When it comes to fossil fuels they certainty agree that we need to replace them in the next number of decades to stop global warming that even a number of republicans agree will need to be done.

HuH...not sure what you mean here?

You implied that Russia has always been getting as involved in US elections as they did in 2016 which is false. They also tried to help Trump win. Did you ever try to think about why?

[_moksha]

If you think that cage trick by Russia was bad, just think of the poster tricks Russia has played on this board, not to mention that huge presidential trick!

[_honorentheos]

I certainly do. It would be great to hear more Republicans in congress disowning the Trump nonsense about (Republican) Robert Mueller's sober and methodical enquiry being a 'witch-hunt', don't you think?

Your response is the exact thing in which Horonentheos was getting at. I just don't think what he suggested is possible in today's atmosphere.

Hey Markk,

I'm going to skip the discussion that came after this. Instead, I'm going to focus on why I brought up the point about toxic partisanship that turns politics into a zero sum game, and why the particular incident mentioned in the OP seems to be a pretty good example of the opposite of what ajax was trying to argue. In the end, the individual member of a major political party who expressed offensive views invoking anti-Semitic tropes about wealthy Jewish cartels manipulating governments was largely and widely rebuked by members of that party - but also not disavowed as not being Democrat or liberal. As the Democratic House leadership responded, they focused on what made the statement unacceptable while avowing that differences of opinions and free speech are fundamental and not to be swept aside. It brings to mind John McCain's response to the woman who called then-Senator Obama an Arab which McCain simply, directly refuted as being a false statement. As he said, "He's a decent family man [and] citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues and that's what this campaign's all about."

That's a fair, principled point where partisanship was constrained to prevent dehumanizing his political opponent.

Ajax's statement reflects what appears to be a tendency among extremists on both sides in the US. When he asked how the "far left"* members of the board felt about a Democrat representative holding views on Israel similar to a white nationalist, it only made sense as a statement if one assumed a binary view of American politics. Otherwise, its as nonsensical as asking how people would feel knowing Stalin had the same favorite food that they considered their favorite which is silly as canpakes pointed out. But it's this approach that causes many extreme conservatives to define someone as a RINO, a cuck among the alt-right types, or whatever other term is in vogue in particular groups to disavow that someone is actually on their same team when they express a view that they don't share. Liberals are just as guilty, using identity politics and shaming to enforce boundary maintenance or disavow someone who isn't sufficiently anti-Trump, or isn't woke, enlightened, whatever. I've seen it personally when my prior service in the military has come up. Some people just can't accept that a person who views military service as an honorable thing can also have progressive political views. Rather than accepting that politics is not only a spectrum, but a multi-dimensional spectrum that people jump wildly across depending on what issue is being discussed the impulse to treat it as two homogenous binary ying-yang is largely used to dehumanize those who fail to check the right boxes. It attempts to narrowly defend one side as the right side to be on, and everyone else as bad. The inevitable result is one is forever whittling away at the number of people that one can consider worthy of simple respect as a fellow human being. And by extension, it excuses behaviors that might be reprehensible merely because they are performed in the service of the right side. The ends justify any and all means when one is locked in a pitched battle of good v. evil.

So, my question to you is why you feel that doing this is more important than establishing principles you, as an individual, adhere to and hold members of all parties to independent of partisan politics?

*ETA: Oh yeah, I was going to comment on the use of the phrase "far left" in the OP. The idea that anyone on this board could legitimately be considered far left is eye-roll worthy, and removes any meaning in that term. The intent appeared to be ajax painting anyone who isn't openly pro-Trump as essentially being on par with anarchists/communists . And it's another example of pushing those with whom one disagrees as far away from the boundaries of one's own views as possible, and then giving it the most extreme label possible to make sure it's clear it's not just a different point of view but actually evil.

[_Markk]

I agree with what you are saying for the most part, what I disagree with, if I am understand your question correctly is that I somehow "...why you feel that doing this is more important than establishing principles you, as an individual, adhere to and hold members of all parties to independent of partisan politics?"

I believe we should be able to sift through the garbage and accept what is good and bad about a political figure, which I think I have done that with Trump over and over again here, in a pragmatist-ic context. In other words he can be a very un-presidential egotistical baby, yet he is doing some very good things for our country. Would you agree? Why, why not?

There are folks here that would never ever, give Trump's kudos for anything...and like wise a few on the right here about the left.

And I would love to hear your definition of what a "far left person is"...Are you saying Kevin G. would not be considered far left, and Ajax far right? I would disagree all the way to my grave on that one.

What is funny, when I do work in LA, and deal with LA professionals (architects, engineers and project owners, designers), for the very most part it turns into a Trump bash at meetings at some point. Folks similar to KG and Doc..where their life's are filled with hate for anyone that would dare agree with anything positive about Trump's presidency, and they feel it is their privilege (not right) to express it while openly hating others that might disagree. When I work in Orange County, it can lean the other direction but in a more private personal way, in So Ca a conservative in public has to be careful no days.

To many here...Trump no matter what is guilty of some sort of direct collusion, which is never specifically defined, and if one dares to question it they are a fool, moron, idiot and a gun toting hillbilly with a swastika on the arm, who mow their lawns with a KKK hat on. Anyone that is a Trump supporter is automatically a bigot. The same with the Right making every democrat a socialist/communist. Just look at the Pic's that are posted, from both sides on this board

So is this just what average democrats do, or only far left democrats? I know democrats I can actually have a conversation with. I also know conservatives that are just as hateful as those I described above and a conversation is impossible if I criticize Trump.

What positive things has Trump done Hor'...? What common ground can you find with his presidency to date?

[_Themis]

I believe we should be able to sift through the garbage and accept what is good and bad about a political figure, which I think I have done that with Trump over and over again here, in a pragmatist-ic context.

Really? I have mentioned I don't think he is 100% bad, but that the bad outweighs the good by so much he is easily the worst president in our lifetimes. Now I gave at least one example of this, but you have given none. Can you provide an example of something Trump has personally done that is good for the US. Give specific reasons why it is good. Just saying something like tax cuts doesn't cut it, since many could easily, and correctly, argue they are bad economically for the US, except the rich, and they are making an already massive debt go up even faster.