Senate Intel: Russia had "Clear Preference" for Trump, Affirming Intelligence Reports

[Gaaz]

The poster probably assumed you were American? Trump is quite literally profiting off of taxpayers. Or do you think the government doesn't pay Mar-a-Lago and his other properties for all of those support staff, Secret Service, etc. to travel with him?

I have zero doubt that any and all politicians profit from taxpayers. It is probably in the job description somewhere, in a very small print so as to not scare normal people off. My point was that some tend to assume something that benefits their narrative in some way almost automatically, without questioning the details. I am not perfect in that regard either, but at least I am trying to improve.

[Daelak]

I have zero doubt that any and all politicians profit from taxpayers. It is probably in the job description somewhere, in a very small print so as to not scare normal people off. My point was that some tend to assume something that benefits their narrative in some way almost automatically, without questioning the details. I am not perfect in that regard either, but at least I am trying to improve.

There has never been such a naked and public showing of corruption and leveraging the executive branch to enrich the Trump family in the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.

[Lenonis]

I have zero doubt that any and all politicians profit from taxpayers.

So that makes blatant corruption ok?

[Bullettime]

What gets me with some of the Trump supporters on this topic is that they don't even seem to realize that Russia not only favored Trump over Clinton and funded mass scale social media attacks and manipulation, but they also fucked the GOP. Not only were they pushing the anti Clinton ads, fake news about police, BLM, Islam, etc, but they were also attacking Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio relentlessly during the primaries, and even hacked the RNC as well as the DNC but only released the DNC's emails. They were seemingly warming up their tools against Trump's primary opponents before turning on full blast against the Democrats once Trump secured the nomination.

And now with more links coming out of the NRA's involvement with Russia, money laundering investigations, etc, the Republican Party got burned by Russia like they do to any other intelligence or financial asset. They played the GOP, helped fund them, then worked against them and threw them under the bus when it became convenient and the party is speculatively too compromised to fight back. This is exactly how Russia treats their intelligence asset, money laundering assets, etc.

Both sides got played but one side got to "benefit" for now so that side is acting like nothing is wrong.

[Gaaz]

Correct. Because I don't know why anyone who isn't American would spend that much time defending Trump.

Not defending. I really see no basis for the investigation. You say that there is "if not collusion then obstruction, if not obstruction then corruption." Yet, what actual evidence is there presented to the public? I mean really, walk me through it. Because here, in Europe, none of it is known. And I wager that a corruption scandal with a US president would be a rather big deal. Not only from the moral high ground point of view, but an opportunity to score some points in a current US-Europe conflict as well. And that is something that any European politician would be happy to explore amidst the turmoil.
Is there some document that states that Trump is taking bribes, treats himself to young female interns, anything that is actually against the current US law and can be constituted as corruption? All he is doing is a politician 101 for vast majority of European countries. I mean did he even try to give a government contract to one of companies he is affiliated with? Because that is a very bottom line minimum requirement to instigate a similar investigation here.

So that makes blatant corruption ok?

You are twisting my words. Benefiting from a taxpayer is not the same as "blatant corruption". Benefiting can also mean just getting your monthly paycheck or getting your 5mins of fame on TV. It is the "blatant corruption" part that lacks any proof, but is alleged at every corner. Benefiting is a normal practice. Otherwise, I do not think that Russians would have paid $500000 to the Clinton foundation just to see a random Billy give a speech. That is also benefiting from a taxpayer in my book, since he got this opportunity due to his presidency, which cost US a fair amount of tax dollars.

[Lenonis]

I really see no basis for the investigation.

Because here, in Europe, none of it is known.

That awkward moment when you try so hard to pretend you accidentally completely ruin your own narrative.

Given I don't really believe anything you are saying anymore I'll let you and google figure out how to get the information you requested.

[Shadowferal]

hmf...most of those claiming to see nothing wrong will disappear for the longest time after the shit hits the fan, hoping no one remembers their bullshit.

[Deleted]

Not defending. I really see no basis for the investigation. You say that there is "if not collusion then obstruction, if not obstruction then corruption." Yet, what actual evidence is there presented to the public? I mean really, walk me through it. Because here, in Europe, none of it is known. And I wager that a corruption scandal with a US president would be a rather big deal. Not only from the moral high ground point of view, but an opportunity to score some points in a current US-Europe conflict as well. And that is something that any European politician would be happy to explore amidst the turmoil.
Is there some document that states that Trump is taking bribes, treats himself to young female interns, anything that is actually against the current US law and can be constituted as corruption? All he is doing is a politician 101 for vast majority of European countries. I mean did he even try to give a government contract to one of companies he is affiliated with? Because that is a very bottom line minimum requirement to instigate a similar investigation here.

You are twisting my words. Benefiting from a taxpayer is not the same as "blatant corruption". Benefiting can also mean just getting your monthly paycheck or getting your 5mins of fame on TV. It is the "blatant corruption" part that lacks any proof, but is alleged at every corner. Benefiting is a normal practice. Otherwise, I do not think that Russians would have paid $500000 to the Clinton foundation just to see a random Billy give a speech. That is also benefiting from a taxpayer in my book, since he got this opportunity due to his presidency, which cost US a fair amount of tax dollars.

In the US (and especially on these forums), you can only be at the outer sides of the spectrum when talking about Trump. Especially these forums are bad, when words are taken out of context. When people lack reading comprehension and start the insults and slander directly. These forums have gotten a bad name all around, because of the echo chamber it is. Don't ever try to bring facts to the table, or show proof nonsense is being posted, you will be directly branded as Nazi/communist/etc. And if you're not from the US, you may not say anything at all!

[Dontrike]

In the US (and especially on these forums), you can only be at the outer sides of the spectrum when talking about Trump. Especially these forums are bad, when words are taken out of context. When people lack reading comprehension and start the insults and slander directly. These forums have gotten a bad name all around, because of the echo chamber it is. Don't ever try to bring facts to the table, or show proof nonsense is being posted, you will be directly branded as Nazi/communist/etc. And if you're not from the US, you may not say anything at all!

This is pretty funny coming from you.

[Deleted]

This is pretty funny coming from you.

Point proven.

[Gaaz]

That awkward moment when you try so hard to pretend you accidentally completely ruin your own narrative.

Given I don't really believe anything you are saying anymore I'll let you and google figure out how to get the information you requested.

So your response is:
1. You do not see any evidence because you are not looking hard enough.
2. If you look really hard and still find no factual evidence, see point №1.
Quite a closed circle, is it not? Basically you prove my point in admitting that there is nothing on the factual side that can be attributed to Trump or his campaign as a basis of this corruption investigation.

[Belize]

In the US (and especially on these forums), you can only be at the outer sides of the spectrum when talking about Trump. Especially these forums are bad, when words are taken out of context. When people lack reading comprehension and start the insults and slander directly. These forums have gotten a bad name all around, because of the echo chamber it is. Don't ever try to bring facts to the table, or show proof nonsense is being posted, you will be directly branded as Nazi/communist/etc. And if you're not from the US, you may not say anything at all!

So, when are you going to start bringing in facts to what you say? We have plenty of Europeans/Canadians posting on these forums, whose opinions are respected.

Maybe you should listen to yourself?

[Deleted]

So your response is:
1. You do not see any evidence because you are not looking hard enough.
2. If you look really hard and still find no factual evidence, see point №1.
Quite a closed circle, is it not? Basically you prove my point in admitting that there is nothing on the factual side that can be attributed to Trump or his campaign as a basis of this corruption investigation.

But don't you see? It's also Israel and Saudi Arabia! When people think conspiracy theories are not allowed here, just go to the politics subforums

[Dontrike]

Point proven.

Considering you are the one that said that it was a conspiracy theory Putin helped Trump win and yet here we are showing Putin definitely wanted it. So there you go from weeks ago, there's the evidence you asked for.

Perhaps you should learn to read though.

[Deleted]

So, when are you going to start bringing in facts to what you say? We have plenty of Europeans/Canadians posting on these forums, whose opinions are respected.

Maybe you should listen to yourself?

Ah, the tu quoque. Never read a post by me, but directly a tu quoque. Point proven again.

- - - Updated - - -

Considering you are the one that said that it was a conspiracy theory Putin helped Trump win and yet here we are showing Putin definitely wanted it. So there you go from weeks ago, there's the evidence you asked for.

Perhaps you should learn to read though.

Can you link where I claimed that? Point proven again. Maybe you are confused with some other "alt" who disproved your claims.

[Powerogue]

Why haven't Trumpsters stopped to ask why a hostel foreign country isn't scared of Trump being POTUS...and in fact, wanted him to be POTUS?

Doesn't that make you guys stop and question your views?

I'm not sure what would at this point. Him shooting a baby? I'm numb to it all by now.

It reminds me of a quote from a debate that stuck with me: "What, if anything, would ever change your mind?"

[Machismo]

Considering you are the one that said that it was a conspiracy theory Putin helped Trump win and yet here we are showing Putin definitely wanted it. So there you go from weeks ago, there's the evidence you asked for.

Perhaps you should learn to read though.

You guys may be better off ignoring the "new" account. You aren't going to get anywhere.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure what would at this point. Him shooting a baby? I'm numb to it all at this point.

Yes, with all the hyperbole people will get more and more indifferent to what Trump does or says. It's a bad tactic and will lead to nothing.

[Gaaz]

In the US (and especially on these forums), you can only be at the outer sides of the spectrum when talking about Trump. Especially these forums are bad, when words are taken out of context. When people lack reading comprehension and start the insults and slander directly. These forums have gotten a bad name all around, because of the echo chamber it is. Don't ever try to bring facts to the table, or show proof nonsense is being posted, you will be directly branded as Nazi/communist/etc. And if you're not from the US, you may not say anything at all!

Yeah, I guess you are right. Just looking at CNN vs Fox mutual accusations give me migraines.

[Belize]

Ah, the tu quoque. Never read a post by me, but directly a tu quoque. Point proven again.

See, there you are failing to bring in facts to what you post.

I have read a post by you, since I had to read your post to answer it.
You make it too easy, sorry Theo.