Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FBI have confirmed they're investigating possible links between Trump's campaign team and Putin's cronies.

Anyone care to tell what the various 'case' scenarios are here? Could it potentially lead to Trump being impeached?

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Obama didn't address the crazies attacking him, in fact he stayed silent on crazy attacks like birtherism for years.

And when he did finally address it, he did it in perhaps one of the more humorous ways of doing so (Remember, he used a video clip from Lion King at the WH correspondents dinner one year).

Always remember:




Meanwhile, Trump is skipping because he has his feelings hurt.

 whembly wrote:
It's also interesting how much you 'champion' Iran and seemingly is unaware that Iran (and other muslim majority nations) bans Jews.

.
Alternate facts at full force.
Not only the fact I “champion” the Iranian people doesn't by any mean imply that I support the undemocratic government that oppress them, but also Jews are not banned from Iran. Like, at all. Bahai are the main oppressed religious minority in Iran (if you don't count atheists and agnostics that are likely much more numerous, and can be sentenced to death if they go public, but are usually just ignored as long as they keep quiet about it). I hate, I REALLY hate how the ignorance of people like you are shaping the foreign policy of the US and other western nations too. You are an instrument of evil. And whether or not it's voluntary or not doesn't freaking matter. Stop being an instrument of evil, get educated, there are plenty of very good reasons to hate the IRI. You don't need to fething make false ones to support your stupid narrative.
The Jews are so banned from Iran that they have seats reserved for them in the Majlis. But hey, feth facts amIrite? All that matters now is feeling and prejudice!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It's also interesting how much you 'champion' Iran and seemingly is unaware that Iran (and other muslim majority nations) bans Jews.

.
Alternate facts at full force.
Not only the fact I “champion” the Iranian people doesn't by any mean imply that I support the undemocratic government that oppress them, but also Jews are not banned from Iran. Like, at all. Bahai are the main oppressed religious minority in Iran (if you don't count atheists and agnostics that are likely much more numerous, and can be sentenced to death if they go public, but are usually just ignored as long as they keep quiet about it). I hate, I REALLY hate how the ignorance of people like you are shaping the foreign policy of the US and other western nations too. You are an instrument of evil. And whether or not it's voluntary or not doesn't freaking matter. Stop being an instrument of evil, get educated, there are plenty of very good reasons to hate the IRI. You don't need to fething make false ones to support your stupid narrative.
The Jews are so banned from Iran that they have seats reserved for them in the Majlis. But hey, feth facts amIrite? All that matters now is feeling and prejudice!

You're moving the goal post.

Jewish Immigrants. We are talking about immigration... no?

EDIT: pretty sure being accused of being an 'instrument of evil' is breaking Rule #1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FBI have confirmed they're investigating possible links between Trump's campaign team and Putin's cronies.

That's already been confirmed.

Anyone care to tell what the various 'case' scenarios are here? Could it potentially lead to Trump being impeached?

If there's hard evidence of actually collaboration between Trump and Russia... impeachment is certainly a possibility.

I'm sticking with there being no impeachment until Feb 2019.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
BTW, anybody looking at the the intelligence committee thing? How's that going?

This just in from Comey...

FBI Director James Comey is publicly confirming for the first time that the FBI is investigating Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, including any potential coordination between Trump campaign associates and Russia's government.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/comey-says-fbi-investigating-russia-interference/ar-BBypoLi?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=ASUDHP

 d-usa wrote:
I'm sticking with there being no impeachment until Feb 2019.

Assuming that the Ds take majority over the House?

 whembly wrote:
Jewish Immigrants. We are talking about immigration... no?

I think you mean Israeli. If you are an ultra-religious crazy anti-Zionist Jewish nutcase you can even be invited in Iran. Did you knew about that, and decided not to mention it, or did you ignore it, and decided it wasn't worth it to document yourself before forming an opinion? Anyway Yeah, that ban on people from Israel coming into the country is terribly stupid. My mother had to use her Swiss passport instead of the French one because of the Israeli stamp. Now Israel got smarter and put the stamp on an extra sheet of paper instead of the passport.

So, your point was that the IRI is just as bad as the US because they also ban people from one country? Congratulation, could you place the bar even lower next time? Like, I heard nazi Germany was bad too, maybe the US is better than them . “The USA, we aren't as bad as the Khmer Rouge” could be a nice slogan I guess.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm sticking with there being no impeachment until Feb 2019.

Assuming that the Ds take majority over the House?

Not really.

But if Pence takes over as POTUS with 1 year and 364 days remaining in the current Term, he would still be eligible to run for 2 more terms. And 10 years of Pence would be a Conservative wet dream IMO.

Double post bug…

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: pretty sure being accused of being an 'instrument of evil' is breaking Rule #1.

I'm not saying you are evil or doing it on purpose, but pointing out to you that your acts have consequences is not disrespecting you.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I'm sticking with there being no impeachment until Feb 2019.

Assuming that the Ds take majority over the House?

Not really.

But if Pence takes over as POTUS with 1 year and 364 days remaining in the current Term, he would still be eligible to run for 2 more terms. And 10 years of Pence would be a Conservative wet dream IMO.

I sure as feth would prefer Pence over Trump... that's for sure...

But, I seriously doubt this would even be remotely possible*.

*take it for what it's worth... I didn't think Trump had a chance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Double post bug…

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: pretty sure being accused of being an 'instrument of evil' is breaking Rule #1.

I'm not saying you are evil or doing it on purpose, but pointing out to you that your acts have consequences is not disrespecting you.

Fair enough.

What consequences are you implying though...

All I've said, is that the US is legally able to restrict immigration based on just about any criteria. You can make the case that it's morally wrong... but you also must acknowledge countries can & should have a 'say' as to who's allowed access.

Well, it would have to be up to the GOP to impeach Trump.

I don't think that the Dems are going to take over the House in 2018, the Senate maybe, but not the House. If they do take over the House it would be because Trump just managed to be the biggest train wreck in the history of the US, and if they take over the Senate they would win a majority, but there is no way that they would win the 67 seats needed for a partisan vote to convict Trump after the House impeaches.

So a successful impeachment of Trump rests on the shoulders of the GOP, no matter how the 2019 elections turn out. If the Dems take the House, the GOP just might realize how bad Trump is dragging them down and take a calculated risk to go along with an impeachment of Trump to give them 2 years of Pence. If the mid-terms are so bad that a 2nd Term for Trump looks like a pipe dream, the GOP legislators might look at what it means for them down the ticket and hope that 2 years of Pence might build up their shot at keeping the White House and hold onto legislative seats in the process. And if Pence wins, then he just now begins his actual 1st term and has one more in his pocket.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Not the US, Trump. Or is he covered by rule #1 now too?

Theoretically, everyone is covered by rule #1, even Trump. In practice, not so much. Running for President is voluntarily opening yourself to be criticized, even quite harshly.

 Frazzled wrote:

feth this country, and yes, I'd leave if I wasn't working poor and I wasn't ashamed to be an American.

As I said, the rules for Dakka moderation no longer seem to apply for this thread. Thank you for proving my point.

I find it a bit hilarious how thin-skinned Frazzled is to criticism of the US, all the while being incredibly scornful toward some foreign countries, and hiding behind the “It was a joke” defense. It never cease to amaze me.

I can be as scornful of New Mexico as I want. The radioactive muties there don't surf the web.

 whembly wrote:
I'll I've said, is that the US is legally able to restrict immigration based on just about any criteria.

I don't see the point in stating this. Saudi Arabia is legally able to make women be literally subjugated to a male relative too. So what? What's your point on stating that fact that doesn't add anything meaningful to the conversation or respond to any of the criticism I made?

 whembly wrote:
You can make the case that it's morally wrong... but you also must acknowledge countries can & should have a 'say' as to who's allowed access.

I make the case that is morally wrong, and economically wrong, and politically wrong. Also why must I acknowledge this? Because the IRI does it too? That's… not a very convincing argument. If anything, it's an argument that you shouldn't do it .

Legitimate criticism =/= an attack. That goes for both rule #1 and the idea of 'oh you can't post anything conservative without being attacked' that loves to pop up every week or so. That almost every Republican idea gets criticised is a sign of just how poor of a party they are right now. I'd note that Democrats get called out on their crap too, it just doesn't seem like it when it is smothered behind the wave of gak Trump pushes out weekly.

Also in from Comey, with regards to Liar-in-Chiefs wiretapping claims: "With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey told a congressional hearing.
"And we have looked carefully inside the FBI. The Department of Justice has asked me to share with you that the answer is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components: the department has no information that supports those tweets," he said.

Before: "MAGA", After: "Making it all up as we go along."

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Also in from Comey, with regards to Liar-in-Chiefs wiretapping claims: "With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey told a congressional hearing.

Before: "MAGA", After: "Making it all up as we go along."

Would that then be MIAUAWGA ???

Doesn't have the same ring

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
Also in from Comey, with regards to Liar-in-Chiefs wiretapping claims: "With respect to the president's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by the prior administration, I have no information that supports those tweets," Comey told a congressional hearing.

Before: "MAGA", After: "Making it all up as we go along."

Would that then be MIAUAWGA ???

Doesn't have the same ring

Wait wasn't he the bad guy in Last of the Mohicans?

 Frazzled wrote:
I can be as scornful of New Mexico as I want. The radioactive muties there don't surf the web.

You know full well that's not what I am talking about. Stop hiding behind “jokes”, it's not doing you any favor. If you can't take a joke, don't make them either.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, it would have to be up to the GOP to impeach Trump.

I don't think that the Dems are going to take over the House in 2018, the Senate maybe, but not the House. If they do take over the House it would be because Trump just managed to be the biggest train wreck in the history of the US, and if they take over the Senate they would win a majority, but there is no way that they would win the 67 seats needed for a partisan vote to convict Trump after the House impeaches.

So a successful impeachment of Trump rests on the shoulders of the GOP, no matter how the 2019 elections turn out. If the Dems take the House, the GOP just might realize how bad Trump is dragging them down and take a calculated risk to go along with an impeachment of Trump to give them 2 years of Pence. If the mid-terms are so bad that a 2nd Term for Trump looks like a pipe dream, the GOP legislators might look at what it means for them down the ticket and hope that 2 years of Pence might build up their shot at keeping the White House and hold onto legislative seats in the process. And if Pence wins, then he just now begins his actual 1st term and has one more in his pocket.

That is a .... scenario.

However, it is abotu as likely as a brokered Party Convention in a Presidential election year.

A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

Persecution is a cornerstone of most religions, period.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

Another example of Rule #1. This is too easy.

 Easy E wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Well, it would have to be up to the GOP to impeach Trump.

I don't think that the Dems are going to take over the House in 2018, the Senate maybe, but not the House. If they do take over the House it would be because Trump just managed to be the biggest train wreck in the history of the US, and if they take over the Senate they would win a majority, but there is no way that they would win the 67 seats needed for a partisan vote to convict Trump after the House impeaches.

So a successful impeachment of Trump rests on the shoulders of the GOP, no matter how the 2019 elections turn out. If the Dems take the House, the GOP just might realize how bad Trump is dragging them down and take a calculated risk to go along with an impeachment of Trump to give them 2 years of Pence. If the mid-terms are so bad that a 2nd Term for Trump looks like a pipe dream, the GOP legislators might look at what it means for them down the ticket and hope that 2 years of Pence might build up their shot at keeping the White House and hold onto legislative seats in the process. And if Pence wins, then he just now begins his actual 1st term and has one more in his pocket.

That is a .... scenario.

However, it is abotu as likely as a brokered Party Convention in a Presidential election year.

Well, I'm not saying Trump will be impeached. I'm just saying IF he gets impeached, I wouldn't expect it until after the 2019 Congress gets sworn in.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

Persecution is a cornerstone of most religions, period.

Not the Great Order of Persecutors. Well more a set of guidelines...

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

Another example of Rule #1. This is too easy.

Really? Point out to me poster "Religious Right" and I will apologize to them for insulting them in this thread

Though it wasnt really an insult, mainly an observation of how they've been acting recently.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

Another example of Rule #1. This is too easy.

Not really though.... We can point out numerous examples of the Religious Right asking for/demanding certain government things being done, and when that thing isn't done they cry persecution. I mean hell, it pops up literally EVERY holiday season. From black friday till boxing day (sorry, I love that the UK and others have named the day after christmas as a holiday) we get the pleasure of seeing story after story about the "War on Christmas" which equates to war on christians, and it's just pathetic.

There are numerous states being taken to court right now for religious violations within public schools, which is used time and again by Christians as "proof" that they are being persecuted, when the reality is, they are the ones violating law/legal precedent

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

Another example of Rule #1. This is too easy.

Really? Point out to me poster "Religious Right" and I will apologize to them for insulting them in this thread

Though it wasnt really an insult, mainly an observation of how they've been acting recently.

Me.

Herzlos wrote:
Making peace with North Korea certainly is an option; we're never going to invade again and they are only sabre rattling out of paranoid fear. I guess we can largely just ignore them though

No, peace isn't an option because North Korea is a not anywhere near an ordinary nation state. In the mid-90s they suffered intense famine, and desperately needed aid. China, South Korea and the USA all offered extensive aid programs, but North Korea would only accept this aid if it was given to their own military and power brokers to distribute. Knowing this would mean the aid would be largely used to line the pockets of the politically connected, the donor countries tried to insist on having third party not for profits come in to the country to give aid. North Korea refused, and wouldn't take the aid. The famine was killing 10 to 20 thousand each month. North Korea was basically holding its own people hostage to make sure that aid would profit the regime. The US, China and South Korea eventually relented, and aid was distributed through NK aid. Between 1 and 2 million people, maybe up to 5% of the population starved to death.

The NK government is much closer to a criminal organisation than it is to a government. It's the same reason they've worked for so long on developing nuclear capability. It isn't for defense, as NK and everyone else knows they've already got 1,000 artillery pieces pointed at Seoul, and that's all the defense they'll ever need. The nuke is just about getting more concessions, demanding more food, more energy, all of which will disappear in to the coffers of high ranking generals and bureaucrats and increase their personal wealth.

You don't make peace with that regime. You contain, and hope that sooner or later internal processes will give hope that the country might move to something more normal.

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
A persecution complex is a cornerstone of today's Religious Right.

Another example of Rule #1. This is too easy.

Really? Point out to me poster "Religious Right" and I will apologize to them for insulting them in this thread

Though it wasnt really an insult, mainly an observation of how they've been acting recently.

Me.

No you're Frazzled not "Religious Right"

Besides, you're a wiener dog, you cant type on a forum.