Truth Discussion Time - Page 73

On February 27 2018 08:36 Baalim wrote: Well this massive thing appears to be bots and social media posts afaik, and there is no evidence Trump was involved and you talk patronizingly as he was, would you be apologetic if no evidence was found? I think you would just carry on like Wolff did.

The fact that there was a huge coverup is indirect evidence. What's your take, that all these members of his administration had nothing to hide and lied to the authorities (which they are now pleading guilty to) for no reason at all?

Also as it was opinted out its extremely hypocritical to be outraged about that, do you call Obama a traitor because he allowed the NSA to illegaly spy on citizens and to want to imprison whistleblowers?

Traitor is wrong the word, but certainly that is awful. But I guess its progress that we're moving away from outright denial in favor of whataboutism.

You probably hate how reckless Trump was when he called KimJongUn "fat rocketman"

Yes moving us closer to nuclear war for basically no reason other than making jokes is something I hate.

The USA is the biggest election rigger in the entire world for fucks sake, you are currently arming syrian rebels sponsoring a coup in Syria lol, get real.

The US, which includes the Trump administration, is supporting certain opponents of a murderous regime. You can reasonably disagree with the strategy of course, but its only LOLbad level if you're completely oblivious to Assad's crimes.

On February 27 2018 16:27 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On February 27 2018 07:18 Stroggoz wrote: obviously it's a seriously moral crime to meddle in another countries elections, and the world would be better off if trump wasn't elected, but it's massive hypocrisy to get mad over russia influencing your elections when you've rigged elections in 30 other countries, including meddling in russias elections itself in 1996. Well its not really hypocrisy, I wasn't the one engaging in those operations I just live here.   Hilary and trump both did worse than that, and hilary gets super indignant about it, but she is a serious war criminal, she herself would be in jail for the rest of her life in any law abiding society. Not sure how Hillary is a war criminal. Yes vote to go into Iraq? I do however think you can make a very serious case that GWB was in fact a war criminal. Invading a foreign country based on fabricated intelligence, seems IMO, like a war crime.   Who cares if trump is guilty of * treason*, he was guilty of serious war crimes a long time ago, not to mention a good case for crimes against humanity could be made for his environmental policy, these things are far more significant than petty crimes like treason. He admits to all of these crimes on a daily basis so a trial would only last about 5 minutes before he would be convicted, assuming we lived in a society where people and lawyers could comprehend the law in a rational way, which they cant probably fair

it is hypocrisy, for any citizen in america, or any other western country, to ignore imperial crimes while focusing on an enemies. If you do not do that, your not a hypocrite. The same principle applies to russian citizens who ignore russian imperial crimes, while focusing on the western ones.

as for war crimes, bombling libya, illegally. the war crime is aggression, and is considered the worst crime you can possibly commit by the Nuremberg principles. Killed tens of thousands. she also overthrew the government of hondorus. That makes her a serious criminal, and the bombing of libya was totally immoral as well, since it was completely unnecessary, gadaffi had offered to make a deal to give up control and go into exlie, to a US general in AFRICOM.

On February 27 2018 19:10 Stroggoz wrote: it is hypocrisy, for any citizen in america, or any other western country, to ignore imperial crimes while focusing on an enemies. If you do not do that, your not a hypocrite.

Yeah I'm not going to preface every post on an internet forum about past US crimes.

as for war crimes, bombling libya, illegally. the war crime is aggression, and is considered the worst crime you can possibly commit by the Nuremberg principles. Killed tens of thousands

Care for a cite? Not sure if you're just referring to the Libyan Civil War but it seems your numbers are way off. That's before we blame just Hillary for NATO coalition actions, and before we even ask if its justified.

^Hey I wasn't calling you a hypocrite, just the US government, although you obviously would be one if you met the criteria i laid out. As far as i can tell the vast majority of citizens in America are hypocrites when it comes to foreign policy, I am very surprised and happy when i meet US citizens that arn't hypocrites on foreign policy.

We don't blame just hillary for nato crimes, obviously, however in nuremberg trials we don't solely blame the nazi foreign minister von ribbontrop for aggression, yet we still sentenced him to death because of the major roll he played in war crimes of aggression. The moral justification was 'responsibility to protect', and it completely collapses under any rational/researched analysis.

im referring to intervention from france/us/britain in 2011. The numbers i was going off was from a book that detailed hilary clintons crimes, written by diana johnstone, called the queen of chaos. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Queen-Chaos-...s-Hillary-Clinton-ebook/dp/B016L1RTR8 I read this book 6 years ago, It appears my memory might have been wrong or i mixed it up with a different conflict. The numbers are important, I'm almost always right and i typically underestimate this kind of stuff. I typically go with the smallest estimates of crimes committed by western nations. i can't find the reference in the book without taking a while to look, but upon looking it up in wikipedia my numbers appear to be wrong. However, even if she killed one person in the bombing, it would be a serious crime, and she would be subject of to a war crimes tribunal, if those things existed for westerner politicians.

NMcNasty you cant be serious. I dislike Trump a lot but your arguments are just insane.

The fact that there was a huge coverup is indirect evidence. What's your take, that all these members of his administration had nothing to hide and lied to the authorities (which they are now pleading guilty to) for no reason at all?

Indirect evidence is no evidence at all. Also why the fuck does it matter so much for you Americans who was leading the tweet bot agenda? If Trump's team had hired a Mexican team would that have been any different than Russians? Don't get me wrong i completely despise Russia but I won't use an irrational argument to try to validate my point of view.

Do you believe that it was only Trump's campaign that leads botnets in social media to gain an edge in the elections? EVERYONE does it, literally every party even in my country has networks of bots and trolls( literally paid people to try to spread propaganda) and you think it's not like that in the USA ?????? No that doesn't make it right, but if everyone does it, it's basically a fair competition in my eyes.

Traitor is wrong the word, but certainly that is awful. But I guess its progress that we're moving away from outright denial in favor of whataboutism.

Nope, traitor is probably too weak of a word to describe him about this case. He willing let a government entity to spy on its own people, violating the constitutional rights of millions of people, which he swore to protect the second he got into office.

Also "Whataboutism" is basically what politics is all about. It only became "a thing" once Trump got into office. I get all of the hate, but people are just blindly going all out throwing out laughable arguments, which only weakens their main goal.

It completely baffles me that people are so sure Hillary would be a better choice. The only thing that would've been better is that people would have it easier and would've been fed lies properly. They are both pieces of shit, except one of them is a dumb piece of shit, while the other is an evil piece of shit and the fact that people are fighting over which one they prefer is very concerning.

I've always been about "whataboutism" I think its great and everyone should do it, because it is the road to get rid of biases.


If you were here claiming how Trump was a traitor but also called Obama a tratitor for domestic spionage.

If it makes you angry that Trump calls Kim a fat rocketman but it also makes you equally angry that Hillary wanted to declare a no-fly zone setting the stage for war against an actual nuclear threat unlike NK

If you were bothered by hacking of emails from podesta you should also be bothered by how Trump was secretly recorded about the pussy grabbing thing.

If it annoyed you when Trump talked about building a wall to stifle migration you have to also be mad when Clinton gave the exact same speech.


I am not here to defend Trump as I said, he is an idiot, I am here to point out your biases, hypocricies and inconsistencies in your judgements.

On the subject of Hillary and Syria, you have to be a child to believe this has anythig to do about stopping murderous regimes for fucks sake.

Assad is the only leader of the region who isnt an Islamist, (thats why Saudi Arabia is sponsoring ISIS with US weaponery to fight him), Russia want Assad who is friendly to their interest, thats why they are the only ones actually bombing ISIS while the US funds them, for the second time in history funding extremist to fend off Russia like they did with the Taliban.

I think hilary would be a better choice than trump, although you can make a case that she is more aggressive in foreign policy.

from what i can understand whataboutism was a term for russian commissars in the cold war, that what draw attention to america's crimes, when they were criticized for their own. So an example would be 'russia invaded afghanistan, but what about when america invaded vietnam,' ect. It seems like a reasonable critcism because those commisars were hypocrites, they were ignoring crimes that russia engaged in and focusing on the wests. But I dont see the problem of criticizing crimes your own country has been involved in, in my view it's admirable.

Yes I think she would have been worse for foreign policy and better for others like environment.


I think "whataboutism" is a good to way to check your own biases, obviously not to defelect criticism, Hillary's no-fly zone doesnt excuse Trump's rocketman tweet, but if you are only outraged by one then its probably time to reflect if you are truly being objective.

On February 28 2018 00:35 Spitfiree wrote: If Trump's team had hired a Mexican team would that have been any different than Russians?

Yes, its completely different. Trump's foreign policy is, lol, not pro-Mexico. I mean its obvious people aren't understanding the basic concepts behind Russiagate:

1) Its factual that a massive Russian government effort underwent to skew the US election in favor of Trump. This was unprecedented for a US election.

2) Trump's foreign policy in regards to Russia was extremely dovish compared to just about every other Republican, and was completely out of place with his overall hawkish foreign policy in general.

3) Worst case scenario, Trump knowingly traded foreign policy favors for assistance in undermining the election. That would be treason.


Yes 1) and 2) does not prove 3) alone but its at least enough to warrant an investigation. A few million in investigative resources is a drop in the bucket. If nothing comes up, fine, you at least assure the American people that the highest office hasn't been compromised. But a lot did show up. Paul Manafort is neck deep in dirty Russian money and will likely spend the rest of his life in jail. Trump Jr. admittedly had a meeting with a Russian lawyer searching for dirt on Hillary. Several other members had contacts with various Russian officials, and then lied about them. Its simply factual that all this happened, and at the very least is illegal behavior. I mean I can't "apologize if nothing shows up", because the corruption has pretty much already been uncovered, the only question is how far up it goes.

Nukes, slavery, and Indian genocide though, almost forgot.

Actually looks like Mexico was trying to get in on the act.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kushners-overseas-contacts-raise-concerns-as-foreign-officials-seek-leverage/2018/02/27/16bbc052-18c3-11e8-942d-16a950029788_story.html?utm_term=.171e82422975

Officials in at least four countries have privately discussed ways they can manipulate Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, by taking advantage of his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience, according to current and former U.S. officials familiar with intelligence reports on the matter. Among those nations discussing ways to influence Kushner to their advantage were the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico, the current and former officials said.

On February 28 2018 17:12 NMcNasty wrote: Nukes, slavery, and Indian genocide though, almost forgot.

the later two are far enough that no one is responsible, and that everyone knows about. you have to mention more recent crimes and ones that are happening now, and in more detail.

On February 28 2018 17:09 NMcNasty wrote: [I mean I can't "apologize if nothing shows up", because the corruption has pretty much already been uncovered, the only question is how far up it goes.

you called Trump a traitor, there isnt direct evidence of that, if it turns out there isnt any would you back pedal or just carry on? I guess you dont have to answer, you kinda already did Mr. Wolff

I like how you completely ignored everything else in my post and only addressed the only non-factual thing... a question. And no, the answer to the question is wrong. Whoever he hired would've wanted political favors, doesn't matter if it were Mexicans or Russians. The end result is always the same. Doesn't really matter if they're neck deep into Jewish, Arab or Russian money. All of those nations are toxic in sense of social-political related stuff.

I have no idea how the anti-Russian propaganda got pushed in the USA btw. I'm glad it exists in a sense, however, the USA has never really had any REAL bad interaction with Russia. You guys hate them as much as we Eastern Europeans do, and we've been under their control for more than 100 years. Blind biases don't really lead to the truth though.

You're right though, the corruption should be pursued to the end.

On March 01 2018 04:57 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 28 2018 17:09 NMcNasty wrote: [I mean I can't "apologize if nothing shows up", because the corruption has pretty much already been uncovered, the only question is how far up it goes. you called Trump a traitor, there isnt direct evidence of that, if it turns out there isnt any would you back pedal or just carry on? I guess you dont have to answer, you kinda already did Mr. Wolff

Absence of evidence does not equate to innocence. At the moment I feel there's enough evidence that Trump is probably guilty of 3), but not enough for that to be proven in a court of law or be removed from office.

On March 01 2018 10:00 Spitfiree wrote: I like how you completely ignored everything else in my post and only addressed the only non-factual thing... a question.

You calling Hillary a piece of shit and being as bad as Trump is an opinion, not a fact. Nothing really of substance for me to respond to there.

And no, the answer to the question is wrong. Whoever he hired would've wanted political favors, doesn't matter if it were Mexicans or Russians. The end result is always the same. Doesn't really matter if they're neck deep into Jewish, Arab or Russian money. All of those nations are toxic in sense of social-political related stuff.

Its all bad but Russia is an entirely different threat level. Just today in a speech Putin was bragging about how he can hit US soil with his new nuclear weapons.

On March 01 2018 16:19 NMcNasty wrote: You calling Hillary a piece of shit and being as bad as Trump is an opinion, not a fact. Nothing really of substance for me to respond to there.

And Trump commiting treason is your opinion too, not a fact.

[quote] Its all bad but Russia is an entirely different threat level. Just today in a speech Putin was bragging about how he can hit US soil with his new nuclear weapons.

So are you saying that Hillary setting a no-fly zone basically claiming the US would shoot down any Mig in Syria is far more reckless than anything Trump has said about Kim, right?

On March 01 2018 16:04 NMcNasty wrote: Show nested quote + On March 01 2018 04:57 Baalim wrote:   On February 28 2018 17:09 NMcNasty wrote: [I mean I can't "apologize if nothing shows up", because the corruption has pretty much already been uncovered, the only question is how far up it goes. you called Trump a traitor, there isnt direct evidence of that, if it turns out there isnt any would you back pedal or just carry on? I guess you dont have to answer, you kinda already did Mr. Wolff Absence of evidence does not equate to innocence.

you cant be serious


I like how Trump is trying to start a trade war with the EU and China. I'm not sure he realizes how dumb that is.

my favorite was the US is innocently propping up opposition in a civil war against a "murderous regime" in Syria, when the opposition have been caught turncoating to ISIS, but Bush (and therefore Obama but we can't mention that) must be a war criminal for fighting a war in Iraq (and Afghanistan?) like Saddam and the Baathists dindu nuffin