A Question For Trump Supporters. Is Everyone Lying?

[PersephoneDankles]

That would be a vague opinion. No facts, just spew.

No, that's as close to a fact as you can get. President Trump has been in office for 126 days. He hasn't done much of anything in that time. And even if he had, the economy is like an aircraft carrier. The only time it moves quickly is when it sinks.

[Jeezy911]

Yet, this unlikable woman is who Trump lost the popular vote to . . .

I love that argument because it is so sad. We have the electoral collage, all candidates know the rules prior to campaigning. Hillary lost knowing what she needed to do to win. If the party doesn't like the rules they could they could propose a constitutional amendment when they have control(2008-2010) but they don't so why complain? It's the sore loser response.

- - - Updated - - -

No, that's as close to a fact as you can get. President Trump has been in office for 126 days. He hasn't done much of anything in that time. And even if he had, the economy is like an aircraft carrier. The only time it moves quickly is when it sinks.

No facts were found in this mess of an argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Your self awareness is a bit...lacking.

Don't worry man Trump will be impeached any day now because of all that Russian evidence that doesn't exist. Any day now.

[Orbitus]

That would be a vague opinion. No facts, just spew. I'm sure Trump is also LITERALLY HITLER too.

No, that isn't opinion, that is how this works. Usually the budgets from the first year is attributed to the previous president as they were the one that actually signed the budget. And Trump is closer to being the next Hitler than anyone else with his fascist rhetoric. Attacking the first amendment and whatnot.

- - - Updated - - -

I love that argument because it is so sad. We have the electoral collage, all candidates know the rules prior to campaigning. Hillary lost knowing what she needed to do to win. If the party doesn't like the rules they could they could propose a constitutional amendment when they have control(2008-2010) but they don't so why complain? It's the sore loser response.

- - - Updated - - -


No facts were found in this mess of an argument.

- - - Updated - - -


Don't worry man Trump will be impeached any day now because of all that Russian evidence that doesn't exist. Any day now.

Compared to the bullshit you post? Yeah, nothing you have said is a fact. Persephonedankles just gave you a perfect analogy, and I showed you how it actually works, and you are STILL WRONG. Oh, and yeah, Trump has been getting closer and closer to getting impeached, his ship is sinking faster than the Titanic. Kushner setting up back channels and Flynn singing like a jaybird, yeah its going to go faster now.

[PersephoneDankles]

No facts were found in this mess of an argument.

[Adam Jensen]

I love that argument because it is so sad. We have the electoral collage, all candidates know the rules prior to campaigning. Hillary lost knowing what she needed to do to win. If the party doesn't like the rules they could they could propose a constitutional amendment when they have control(2008-2010) but they don't so why complain? It's the sore loser response.

- - - Updated - - -


No facts were found in this mess of an argument.

- - - Updated - - -


Don't worry man Trump will be impeached any day now because of all that Russian evidence that doesn't exist. Any day now.

You pointed out that she's disliked. If she's so disliked, why didn't Trump win the popular on top of the EC?

[Zomis]

The President has been getting more negative press than usual lately. His list of allegations are but not limited to:

Contact with Russian persons during election campaign

Knowledge of Flynn's misconduct with the Russians

Attempts ti coerce Comey's investigation

Firing Comey to snuff out the Russian investigation

Firing Comey in favor of Russian contemporaries

Asking intelligence officials to ease off the Russian investigation

Barring national media but allowing foreign media to events

Disclosure of sensitive information to foreign agents

and

Russia caught attempting to sway the US election


Sobwe have a huge list of claims and allegations. Many are supported by highly respected officals or retired officals from both parties. Some with paper trails and data to support them.
But will all of that, many Trump die hards are reluctant to accept any of the above as true or its not important.

I would like some insight on these views. If none of the above is true then we're looking at the biggest conspiracy ever in the history of the US.

Help me understand how Trumps opponents were able to keep something so big under wraps for so long? Why wait until he is in office with a national backing to try to remove him? Wouldn't it have been easier to just steal the nomination from him?

Why isn't collusion with Russian a troubling national issue?

Where are the articles dispelling the myths? I would like to read them. There should be conservative outlets that contradict the lies and slanders put out by the MSM?, right?

I just want to know that Im not being duped by the MSM.

Name one credible source that says Trump is being investigated by the FBI. Funny how Demorats thought Hillary was innocent until found guilty but Trump is guilty without even being investigated. Keep it up with your conspiracy theories, it's funny!

[Lenonis]

Don't worry man Trump will be impeached any day now because of all that Russian evidence that doesn't exist. Any day now.

As much as I appreciate a good strawman you need to remember who you are talking to. I've repeatedly stated I don't think Trump will get impeached barring some really really bad stuff being found out that is beyond what is currently in scope.

- - - Updated - - -

Name one credible source that says Trump is being investigated by the FBI.

A question that is probably key to this -- do you believe the Trump campaign includes Trump himself?

[Cthulhu 2020]

That's cute. Not worthy of a thoughtful response, but cute nonetheless.

Pro-tip: People are making fun of the fact that you have yet to make a thoughtful comment in response to everyone calling out your failure at statistics.

So question for you, you may believe this whole Russia thing is liberal conspiracy trash bait, and don't believe for one second that Russia greatly affected the outcome of our election, you know, them being the "X factor" that news stations didn't account for when using polling data to determine who would win. Russia's interference just wasn't on their radar.

But how does it feel to have fake liberal conspiracy trash bait go from being fake liberal conspiracy trash bait to being confirmed by the FBI, CIA, and NSA?

[kail]

Not how it works in politics. Trumps in charge 401k going up. The end.

It's been going up for quite a while, well before Trump's presidency.

[Jeezy911]

Pro-tip: People are making fun of the fact that you have yet to make a thoughtful comment in response to everyone calling out your failure at statistics.

So question for you, you may believe this whole Russia thing is liberal conspiracy trash bait, and don't believe for one second that Russia greatly affected the outcome of our election, you know, them being the "X factor" that news stations didn't account for when using polling data to determine who would win. Russia's interference just wasn't on their radar.

But how does it feel to have fake liberal conspiracy trash bait go from being fake liberal conspiracy trash bait to being confirmed by the FBI, CIA, and NSA?

Russia had nothing to do with the election, that's just a MSM excuse for why they lost. They can't except the fact that the ideology is being rejected.

[PersephoneDankles]

Russia had nothing to do with the election, that's just a MSM excuse for why they lost. They can't except the fact that the ideology is being rejected.

This is the forum equivalent of Genji pressing E.

[Lenonis]

Russia had nothing to do with the election

I just can't believe people say this with a straight face. There is pretty much no one in office that doesn't think Russia interfered in our election. What is being debated is if it was just a massive propaganda effort or if there was active collusion. THAT is what is up for debate.

They can't except the fact that the ideology is being rejected.

Yeah, sure. The left was rejected so hard they won by 3 million votes. And why the right lost seats in the house and senate. In fact more votes were cast for democratic candidates for president, house, and senate. And that is all fact -- you can't handwave that away no matter how hard to try.

Look, you can say whatever you want about the election but there was no popular mandate for the right. It's not accidental they can't get anything done.

[Jeezy911]

I just can't believe people say this with a straight face. There is pretty much no one in office that doesn't think Russia interfered in our election. What is being debated is if it was just a massive propaganda effort or if there was active collusion. THAT is what is up for debate.

Yeah, sure. The left was rejected so hard they won by 3 million votes. And why the right lost seats in the house and senate. In fact more votes were cast for democratic candidates for president, house, and senate. And that is all fact -- you can't handwave that away no matter how hard to try.

Look, you can say whatever you want about the election but there was no popular mandate for the right. It's not accidental they can't get anything done.

You may want to check the trends over the last 10 years. Democrats are losing in a major way on every level.

[Aracs]

I just can't believe people say this with a straight face. There is pretty much no one in office that doesn't think Russia interfered in our election. What is being debated is if it was just a massive propaganda effort or if there was active collusion. THAT is what is up for debate.

What is your general opinion about involvement of one country into elections in other countries?
Can US do that in other countries? Can other countries do that in response (just for defence, nothing more)?
What about Saudi's and Israel involvement into US elections? Should your country bomb them for doing that?
If russians were able to elect president for US, shouldn't you just elect president for them?

Questions so many questions...

[Lenonis]

You may want to check the trends over the last 10 years. Democrats are losing in a major way on every level.

Talk about fake news. Unless you want to pretend that 2009-2011 didn't exist.

On the state level, sure, Dems have been losing, but that's because they have been concentrating into urban areas in certain states. So numerically Dems are growing but they are also concentrating their power into specific areas.

Bah, I need to know my audience. You don't care about details that don't align to your pre-conceived notions of what is "real"

- - - Updated - - -

What is your general opinion about involvement of one country into elections in other countries?

I don't think it's right. I don't think it's right when we do it, I don't think it's right when other countries do it.

Should your country bomb them for doing that?

Wut

If russians were able to elect president for US, shouldn't you just elect president for them?

I never once said that Russians elected Trump president.

Questions so many questions...

I have one. Why are you asking blatantly skewed questions instead of just coming right out with your point?

[Aracs]

I don't think it's right. I don't think it's right when we do it, I don't think it's right when other countries do it.

Good, but are your sure that your actions are in line with what are you saying? As I got you voted for Clinton, but she were involved in series of illegal actions with voting or protests in other countries. I mean arabian overthrows started in 2011 (remember her laughing at Gaddafi death?). Whereas Trump has not been involved into such kind of things yet.

Wut

I mean can disturbing of the elections be considered as a war?

I never once said that Russians elected Trump president.

But you are sure (and all your office) that they are involved into that. Sorry for such a radical question, but I think you got my point: "If someone made something to you, just make (or not) the same thing against them". Eye for an eye.

I have one. Why are you asking blatantly skewed questions instead of just coming right out with your point?

I just want understand your "point of view". There are some strange things which are not sum-up into the whole picture.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Good, but are your sure that your actions are in line with what are you saying? As I got you voted for Clinton, but she were involved in series of illegal actions with voting or protests in other countries. I mean arabian overthrows started in 2011 (remember her laughing at Gaddafi death?). Whereas Trump has not been involved into such kind of things yet.


I mean can disturbing of the elections be considered as a war?


But you are sure (and all your office) that they are involved into that. Sorry for such a radical question, but I think you got my point: "If someone made something to you, just make (or not) the same thing against them". Eye for an eye.


I just want understand your "point of view". There are some strange things which are not sum-up into the whole picture.

I mean, that would make sense if interference in foreign elections were the only issue on the table during the election. It wasn't, not by a long shot. What you're suggesting is that with a passably left-ish candidate on one side, and an extreme right-wing candidate on the other (running on a platform of bigotry and spite), Democrats should have gone with Trump because he hadn't interfered with foreign elections yet. If the candidates had been at all close in policies and experience, that might have been a deciding factor, but as it is it's the kind of thing that makes people hold their nose when they vote.

[Aracs]

I mean, that would make sense if interference in foreign elections were the only issue on the table during the election. It wasn't, not by a long shot. What you're suggesting is that with a passably left-ish candidate on one side, and an extreme right-wing candidate on the other (running on a platform of bigotry and spite), Democrats should have gone with Trump because he hadn't interfered with foreign elections yet. If the candidates had been at all close in policies and experience, that might have been a deciding factor, but as it is it's the kind of thing that makes people hold their nose when they vote.

Well, my concern about US 2016 elections (I was in US last autumn) was that there are a plenty of good democrats in primaries, but they chosen the most inadequate imo. I also heard opinions of US people that democrats primaries was fraud as it is. That turned a lot of people against democrats and they elected Trump.

[LaserSharkDFB]

Well, my concern about US 2016 elections (I was in US last autumn) was that there are a plenty of good democrats in primaries, but they chosen the most inadequate imo. I also heard opinions of US people that democrats primaries was fraud as it is. That turned a lot of people against democrats and they elected Trump.

I would contend that Bernie wasn't actually a Democrat, since he was Independent before the primaries and changed back afterward, but that's beside the point. The DNC may have favored Clinton, it's true, and that's kinda shitty, and most likely did contribute to people not voting for Clinton. I'm not really seeing what that has to do with interference in foreign elections, though.

[Lenonis]

Good, but are your sure that your actions are in line with what are you saying? As I got you voted for Clinton, but she were involved in series of illegal actions with voting or protests in other countries. I mean arabian overthrows started in 2011 (remember her laughing at Gaddafi death?). Whereas Trump has not been involved into such kind of things yet.

You probably missed my statements in the past where I'm a pragmatic voter, not an idealistic one. There is no candidate who completely aligns on my views so I have to decide what is more important to me when I go to the ballot box. The GOP, including Trump, is a direct threat to me and my rights so there is no argument to be made where Trump is the better candidate for me.

I mean can disturbing of the elections be considered as a war?

There is a chasm of difference between committing and act of war and bombing a country. I wouldn't say propaganda is an act of war (this is just my opinion here), but hacking into systems would be. But I don't think every act of war needs to be retaliated with bombs.

But you are sure (and all your office) that they are involved into that. Sorry for such a radical question, but I think you got my point: "If someone made something to you, just make (or not) the same thing against them". Eye for an eye.

There are a lot of shady things both parties do. Mucking about with other countries sovereignty is something both parties have done for...well...decades at least if not longer. In some cases I think it's justified -- such as our attempts to interfere with North Korea's nuclear/missile program. That's just plain old self defense. But when we've overthrown leaders in other countries, especially in central/south America -- that's super shady.

I just want understand your "point of view". There are some strange things which are not sum-up into the whole picture.

My point of view is that things are not black-and-white very often. And when it comes to countries spying and sabotaging each other it's a big messy world of grey that doesn't really align to any one political party.

- - - Updated - - -

I also heard opinions of US people that democrats primaries was fraud as it is.

Primaries are private organization events -- and thus the rules around them are very lax. So technically no fraud was committed. However the DNC did not treat Bernie fairly -- but as was brought up he also wasn't a democrat so although it was a poor decision it was an understandable one.

And that's from someone who voted for Bernie in the primary.