Comey: Trump Campaign officially under investigation by the FBI

[Puupi]

It's a long 4 hours for Comey and Rogers to stay focused answering these things. o_O

[Daelak]

53% of white women voted for Trump.

Yeah, which is less than white males with no college degree.

[Nathreim]

We already knew the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign this isn't new this was talked about during the election.

[caervek]

Amazing how Wikileaks confirmed the hack came from within the DNC and people are still yelling it was Russia. At what point do facts matter to these people instead of basing things off emotions? The level of retard our country has sunk to is unbelievable.

They have already decided it was Russia, they care not for facts as that will only hinder the investigation XD

[satimy]

Comey just testified Trump Campaign and individuals officially under investigation by the FBI.

And yet another wall comes tumbling down.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/20/politi...fSrc=permalink



Let's spell out what just happened.

The Director of the FBI just confirmed in front of Congress that the sitting US President's campaign is under election for collusion with a foreign adversary in his election. Historic and terrifying.

So if the FBI can't find anything will you then claim the FBI is working for the Russians?

[Tijuana]

There are democrats you know, you know. There are democrats you know you don't know. But, there also those democrats you don't know, you don't know. That's the real threat!

I feel like there are words here but I can't put them in to any kind of order that equates a thought or idea.

[Matchles]

We already knew the FBI was investigating the Trump campaign this isn't new this was talked about during the election.

Uhhh no we didn't. Where are you getting that?

[Citizen T]

Don't count on it. The American people supported the Iraq War by huge magins, and then re-elected Bush in 2004. And then they supported the wars for years. But when the war got worse, people reconned why and their level of support.

It's exactly what will happen here. There is no difference between "I supported the war until I found out Bush lied about WMDs", and "I supported Trump until I found out that he lied about his relationship with Russia".

People's opinion will turn, and then they'll start saying things like "Oh I was never that big a Trump supporter (ignore the MAGA hat in the closet)".

This is exactly how people are. And in the end this is exactly what will destroy Trump.

I'm not one of those that love Trump but have no problem with him being used by Republicans to further some of their legislative agenda - particularly as it relates to military spending and immigration.

While I respect your opinion above - and it may come true - I really don't think things will change much. My own personal "conspiracy theory" is that Trump ran for President in order to launch Ivanka into politics.

[HumbleDuck]

Sometimes I feel ... isolated on issues relating to Trump. What I mean is, w/e happens means exactly f-all to my daily life. I'll still wake up at the buttcrack of dawn to go to work, still have to mow my yard and pay my bills, and still from time to time drop into a dive bar to pick up some "entertainment" before sending her on her way.

There's no draft, and I'm in my early 40s anyway so I'm past the age for that. So, war? /yawn
You mean target practice for the most technologically advanced killing machine in human history, the US military.

LGBT rights? We're nibbling around the edges now, the big issues having been decided. another /yawn

Abortion? As a man, it's none of my business. I'm by default pro-choice I guess, but it means nothing to me from day to day.

Health care? I've got decent insurance through my job, and anyway if the GOP repeals without a replace, they will be committing political suicide for 2018 and 2020.


I could go on with more examples, but this is my point: Trump/Congress/etc have far less importance in my day to day life than people would have me believe. As I said to Skroe once, I neither adore Trump nor am I in paroxysms of hysteria over him.

They can use this comment in dictionaries as an example under the word ignorance.

[Matchles]

I feel like there are words here but I can't put them in to any kind of order that equates a thought or idea.

Now you know what our life was like under 43's Secretary of Defense.

[Orbitus]

Biased news is also quite annoying wouldn't you agree? Using curse words to make your point could be deemed as childish as well some people might say.

No, YOU think they are biased news sources because they are exposing your candidate. The only one that is complaining about fucking curse words is you. Maybe you are the one that needs to grow up, not other people on this forum. If you can't handle curse words, I suggest leaving the forum and going to some sort of echo chamber where they agree with you.

[Citizen T]

Wasn't his intent the opposite? The situation like your analogy is what Comey was saying. Conaway was specifically asking the opposite; whether they wanted Trump to win.

No. The intent is that the team that plays Duke means nothing to him, but obviously they will benefit by the defeat of Duke.

Just because Putin wanted Hillary to lose, doesn't mean he likes Trumps. Obviously he "wanted" Trump to win in order for Hillary to lose though. Hell, by this logic I was exactly like Putin. I voted for Trump only to defeat Hillary - not because I loved Trump.

[caervek]

I feel like there are words here but I can't put them in to any kind of order that equates a thought or idea.

It'a a modified version of an old saying:

There are things you know.
There are things you know that you do not know.
And there are things, that you do not know you do not know.

My guess is it's poking fun at your "unknown democrats" comment.

[Tijuana]

Now you know what our life was like under 43's Secretary of Defense.

Which one? Why? Please finish your post. It seems interesting to me.

- - - Updated - - -

It'a a modified version of an old saying:

There are things you know.
There are things you know that you do not know.
And there are things that you don't know you don't know.

My guess is it's poking fun at your "unknown democrats" comment.

Neat. Why not just post a complete thought to begin with?

[Matchles]

Which one? Why? Please finish your post. It seems interesting to me.

It was a take on a Rumsfeld Quote.

[Allybeboba]

And guess who helped?

Who? The suspense is killing me.

[Acidbaron]

That's... Not a conservative value. Being a Liberal doesn't mean you suddenly want to waste money with no purpose xD

Depends, I identify myself as a fiscal conservative and on that level there is a lot more 'saving' and smart spending on government funds present than in an more social mind set where they believe you have to keep government spending up there to promote growth more among people, while there's some truth in that message i don't really follow it fully.

If you look in practice to give an example, socialist are more likely to easier give an unemployment check without too many added requirements while fiscal conservative governments demand more of a proof of your actively searching for a job, engaged in re-education. I know in my nation you have to pretty much proof you attempted to have a certain amount of job interviews, or in other nations you have unemployed doing jobs like maintaining the city. The left would argue that's a stigmatization being added to those unemployed the right would argue it's more than right some does something for their job.


As for more base conservative values, more set on traditions, bigger opposition to change (hence harder stances on immigration and demanding immigrants to take over part of our values), more for an sense of authority. Intentionally used left and right here and not liberalism as liberalism resides on both halves of the political spectrum.

[Allybeboba]

Wanna know who has ties to his associates?

Hillary perhaps?

[Deleted]

I still can't believe the FBI investigated the Presidents TWEETS. WTF. This is so embarassing.

[Skroe]

I'm not one of those that love Trump but have no problem with him being used by Republicans to further some of their legislative agenda - particularly as it relates to military spending and immigration.

While I respect your opinion above - and it may come true - I really don't think things will change much. My own personal "conspiracy theory" is that Trump ran for President in order to launch Ivanka into politics.

Military spending was going up even if Kermit the Frog was elected as a write in candidate. Legitimately the only major figure against increasing defense spending was Barack Obama.

I post a lot about defense issues in this forum but the vast majority of my posts are about policy and budget because I'm less interested in how fast a missile goes (though i find it interesting, like anybody else), and way more interested in how that missile will effect foreign and security policy and policy making. And the common thread since 2012 is "Republicans and Democrats all agree we need to spend more on defense... a lot more, but Barack Obama says no."

Why is that? I think Obama was intentionally trying to hamstring US expeditionary power to prevent it from being able to fight foreign wars in Eurasia. The cuts the military did suffer disproportionately effected mobility and power projection, and spared things Obama cared for, such as counter-terrorism, drones and cyberwarfare. He even proposed cutting a carrier that is just 25 years into its 50 year lifespan, and stealth-retire half the cruisers (which would have severely harmed Navy air defense).

But the thing is: nobody else major in government wanted it, and those miserable ideas were leaving with Obama. As if we needed more evidence of this, after 8 years of saying a Navy of 273-308 ships was fine, the Navy comes out in October of last year and says "no , really we need 355 ships"... which is exactly what most major think tanks and the bipartisan consensus was honing in on.

Point is, ypu're using Trump to push a legislative agenda for items that were largely going to happen if we wrote in a sock puppet. That wall? No that wouldn't be a thing in horrific concrete form. A more effective and cost effective virtual wall of drones and remote sensor equipment? Absolutely. Kelly himself even testified about how stupid and unhelpful static defenses are.