All-purpose news and politics thread: Two Steps Beyond!

[Malvolio]

You're joking, right? Do collusion and treason not bother you, Mets?

I think that what Mets is saying is that no amount of evidence against Trump and his cronies will get people to vote against incumbent Republicans in Congress, unless those incumbents are directly related to the collusion and treason, rather than merely turning a blind eye to it.

[worstblogever]

I think that what Mets is saying is that no amount of evidence against Trump and his cronies will get people to vote against incumbent Republicans in Congress, unless those incumbents are directly related to the collusion and treason, rather than merely turning a blind eye to it.

Polling is starting to indicate otherwise. Like, Trump's die-hard support was thought to be 28%... but I'm starting to wonder if his approval ratings might drop that low or lower.

[worstblogever]

Speaking of, Trump just Tweeted that our country could "use some good old global warming" to combat the low temperatures in the Northeast right now.

Yeah, that's clearly a sane man deserving of our support. Also, his campaign was corrupt and treasonous, his administration is corrupt... so y'know...

[Mister Mets]

I think that what Mets is saying is that no amount of evidence against Trump and his cronies will get people to vote against incumbent Republicans in Congress, unless those incumbents are directly related to the collusion and treason, rather than merely turning a blind eye to it.

I'm just interested in having people explicitly say what they think will happen, mainly as a result of the Mueller investigation. Some outcomes seemed to be taken as a given, but that can lead to individuals arguing past one another when they have different expectations (IE- If you have one person who thinks Trump is almost certainly going to be indicted in the next six months arguing with someone who thinks he hasn't broken any laws arguing with someone who thinks a variety of outcomes are possible.)

I don't think he will find it. I think he already has. I mean, Trump Jr. has posted proof that it happened. Trump Sr. invited the Russians to hack in a speech in front of the press.

That's... y'know, kind of easy pickings.

Yeah, but this isn't stuff that is unambiguously illegal. You don't have to go to Breitbart to find arguments against indicting Trump for it.

As an example, Trump's urging Russia to find Hillary's missing emails is only meaningful if the emails were retrievable, which Hillary Clinton and her associates denied.

[Dalak]

As an example, Trump's urging Russia to find Hillary's missing emails is only meaningful if the emails were retrievable, which Hillary Clinton and her associates denied.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought convincing others to do illegal acts is still illegal even if they aren't successful.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Speaking of, Trump just Tweeted that our country could "use some good old global warming" to combat the low temperatures in the Northeast right now.

The mindblowing ignorance and stupidity of Dolt45 knows no bounds. Meanwhile, it wouldn’t surprise me if his equally low IQ followers are saying, “No! Let those liberals freeze!”

[Mister Mets]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought convincing others to do illegal acts is still illegal even if they aren't successful.

According to Clinton and associates, the illegal act would be impossible to do, because they declared (I think under penalty of law) that the emails were irretrievable.

[worstblogever]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought convincing others to do illegal acts is still illegal even if they aren't successful.

You'd be right, and just not regurgitating Fox News talking points, as it seems those who defend the GOP no matter will do.

[numberthirty]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought convincing others to do illegal acts is still illegal even if they aren't successful.

How, exactly, would you pin down that Trump saying that convinced them to do what they were probably already going to do(shoot, probably were already doing when he said it) anyway?

I see the argument. I just don't see where you can get "Proof" that someone couldn't poke full of holes.

[Tazirai]

GOP Congressman says it's time to 'purge' FBI of anti-Trump elements



It's bad enough when it's just Trump and his cronies, but when Congressional Republicans start acting like Trump stooges following a Putin playbook on authoritarian regimes, then you know we're in deep trouble.

I think it's time for these Republicans to become the Authoritarians they really are. Here they go...

[numberthirty]

This looks like a step in the right direction...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKBN1EN032

Chicago board finds policeman's fatal shooting of two not justified: newspapers

[Dalak]

According to Clinton and associates, the illegal act would be impossible to do, because they declared (I think under penalty of law) that the emails were irretrievable.

And to the terrorist who buys fake bomb making materials from an FBI agent it is impossible to make a working bomb, but he's still charged with it. The Pizzagate guy found it impossible to rescue underage sex slaves but was still arrested when he tried.

In other words: Failure to succeed at your illegal act isn't legal just because what you are trying can't actually be done.

E:

How, exactly, would you pin down that Trump saying that convinced them to do what they were probably already going to do(shoot, probably were already doing when he said it) anyway?

I see the argument. I just don't see where you can get "Proof" that someone couldn't poke full of holes.

That's besides the point entirely, but I'd think trying to incite riots when there are rioters already on the streets is still illegal too.

EE:

You'd be right, and just not regurgitating Fox News talking points, as it seems those who defend the GOP no matter will do.

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure.

[Tazirai]

I do not think it will lead to Trump's ouster. Rich people like Trump don't really ever face consequence. That's why this country was founded.

I do think a bunch of stuff will come out about Trump though, but republicans won't care because they don't really care about anything any more, if they ever did.

And others will certainly be indicted.

Agreed. He'll serve his four, and then not get re-elected, and then claim he was the best President ever. Republicans will drop him like a bad hat because he already gave them Tax Cuts, the true icing on the cake will come with Entitlement reform, because Republicans need to really shit on us.

Option 2 is he quits.. which is more likely, then we get President Milquetoast Pence for like 2 minutes.

[numberthirty]

That's besides the point entirely, but I'd think trying to incite riots when there are rioters already on the streets is still illegal too.

Not if what they need to charge you with is "Convincing".

[numberthirty]

If that's what you are trying to prove, it falls apart if anyone on your legal team can prove that something like it was already in progress before you opened your mouth.