So much for that whole "Russian" hackers theory. :D

USA Today - WikiLeaks: CIA hacking group 'UMBRAGE' stockpiled techniques from other hackers

An unverified source said it may be possible to frame Phil Spector for murder therefore Phil Spector is innocent.

Not really an applicable analogy here considering how we still have no evidence of collusion with Russia (or that they influenced the election at all). At least Wikileaks have some credibility, unlike a certain dossier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Hmmmmm.......

I'm sure the CIA and NSA have your best interests at heart. :D

Swing and a miss. Stop with the green smilie. Everyone here knows your agenda by now. Trying to be cute changes nothing.

My president is failing miserably so far in my opinion, and only 7 weeks in. Not sure a complete and total paradigm shift in the position of the leader of the free world is what we need at this stage in history.

I understand he's doing everything to satiate his base right now, but at what "big picture" expense?

Putin and Jong-un are sitting back, getting drunk, and loving every ****ing second of this ****.

Wow no one has brought up how awful Trumpcare is?

The only minor benefits is that he's keeping the whole staying on your parent's plan til 26.

Oh and the whole pre-existing conditions piece of the ACA.

Here are some bullet points.

• It includes massive cuts to Medicaid, the program that provides coverage for millions of low-income Americans.
  
• It defunds Planned Parenthood and eliminates abortion coverage.
  
• It includes a big tax break for insurance companies that pay their CEOs more than $500,000 per year.
  
• A significant portion of the bill is devoted to ensuring lottery winners don’t have access to Medicaid.(which is kind of strange and I don't think I have a problem with it but it's oddly specific type of thing to add.)
  
• It will result in a lot fewer people having health insurance.

sauce

I think the technical name is AHCA
American Health Care Act instead of Afforable Care Act.

It is an applicable analogy when you understand that it's about jumping to conclusions based on shaky assumptions.

Hey, thanks for the condescending Occam's Razor link though. The unintentional irony was pretty amusing.

Which is what you guys do constantly, like citing articles from The Washington Post or other outlets where anonymous "sources" say things about Trump and you chuckleheads believe it cause "durrr its Trump". I think a phrase related to throwing stones applies here. :D

Again, all I'm asking for a little consistency here. I don't care about being criticized, but I find it interesting when I get dismissed out of hand because it doesn't play into your internal narrative.

I love it when I'm spot on, because this entire response has nothing to do with either of my last two posts. Very typical of you. Don't segue to another topic just because you don't understand how groups like Umbrage work. I know YOUR agenda very well. I know you have real fears and concerns in regards to Trump, but I'm talking about problems that predate him and indicate a greater malaise. Don't lecture other people about seeing "the big picture" when you refuse to address it when I bring it up.

I didn't have high hopes for the Republicans being able to replace the ACA efficiently, but it's definitely underwhelming to say the least. They're gonna have to do better if they want to prove more competence than the previous administration in this particular arena.

We know your agenda, Ant.

https://media1.giphy.com/media/IMOH7KL8x6aC4/giphy.gif

Everybody seems to trust the government but me. I'm such a horrible person!1111

I was trying to curb the back patting but it backfired.

Is anyone else incredibly fatigued by all this? Seriously, at this point I'm willing to just ride this out if Trump would just stop doing things that antagonize people. He could be sneakier and probably get away with all the shady **** he wants to do if he would just tone it down, because if all I want is an excuse to forget about all this for a little while I'm sure a lot of other people feel the same way.

People need to realize that as much as the GOP is the party of feelings, the Dems are the party of appearances. They are willing to let a lot of things slide if you just put up the appearance that you are making an effort to work with them. Obama was able to drone the hell out of the middle east because he was a super polite guy when he told everyone about it. So we all went "He said it so well...this must be necessary." Trump could learn from this.

Only problem is that 113 of them were released by Bush and only 9 by Obama.

Fact-checking Trump's tweet about Guantanamo Bay detainees - ABC News

Obama is getting ready to hop in a car, drive to the white house, and kick Trump's ass.

Obama irked and exasperated in response to Trump's wiretapping claims, sources say - CNNPolitics.com

Completely agreed. One of the reasons I'm not as hard on Trump as I am on Obama is because to me, Trump is like an overgrown kid. A smart kid maybe, but not really savvy in the way politicians tend to be. How can someone with as little nuance as Trump even begin to collaborate with Russia and then cover it up? He's a reality TV star and a real estate mogul for God's sake, not a schemer. He shoots himself in the foot so much that the latest Wikileaks seems that much more logical of an explanation than the current allegations against Russia. People give the GOP way too much credit. The Democrats are a different story: as you said, they are the party of appearances.

Compare how Trump says and does things to Obama, who always sounded so nice and measured on T.V. but continued to commit mindboggling invasions of privacy against U.S. citizens and atrocities against other countries under the nose of the media...yet pretty much got away with it for eight years because his party is aligned with the guys who fund most of these organizations. There's so many different agendas at play.

You pretty much just admitted that Donald Trump is an incompetent who has no business being President of the United States.

Pretty much. He's learned the hard way that you can't run the country like a CEO runs a corporation. But he's just one symptom of a greater set of problems that extends back several administrations.

Easy all of the people that he surrounds himself with. They are so good at what they do that they have you thinking that obviously he can't be in collusion with Russia because he's a dunce and not a savvy politician. It's the perfect guise really.

I still don't understand how the CIA and Russia can't both be hacking or attempting to influence elections.

from here on out we're calling it Bruhssia

Trump's been in bed with Russia for decades. Long before he decided to play politician. The meetings and phone calls between Trump's camp and Russia during the election have been verified. You trying to dismiss them as Trump not being competent enough is just more of your Trump apologism.

Did ya hear about this one?

'The New Yorker' Uncovers Trump Hotel's Ties To Corrupt Oligarch Family : NPR

Russia is just a strawman. They don't have a fraction of the resources available to our intel agencies. Remember France back in 2011?

That's a nice article and all Chula, but you have to present information that, you know, actually has something to do with what I've said previously. You aren't much of a "big picture" thinker after all when the stuff coming out of Wikileaks is a million times scarier than a country who'd suck us off for those sanctions to get lifted.

Americuck.

Bruhmerica
Canabruh

For anyone who doesn't feel like reading this: Trump did business with a company where all he took care of was branding which is not entirely true because (???). One of the people involved with the business deal has speculated ties to Azarpassillo, who are speculated to be a front company for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. So this deal (which was cancelled) means that Trump violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (assuming that all of the assumptions that we made to get to this point aren't just wishful thinking).

I'm here to help.

Because everything Wikileaks puts out is 100% credible.

And you want to talk about sucking someone off? You've been doing that with Trump for months.

Are you ****ing serious?

Me too.

They were involved with it until they cancelled the deal, which means that they didn't make a profit off of it.

Smart move from NPR for doing it as an interview with the journalist who wrote the story instead of writing one themselves. Maintains their cred as far as reliable sourcing goes.

Trump backed out at the last minute to save face. Doesn't erase his involvement, and it's a safe assumption that if he'd lost the election he would have kept the deal going.

He followed the law to save face well how about that let's indict him.

Nah his scandals are like a bed of nails. One would've punctured anyone else's campaign but they kept him afloat.

I wonder, is this the new Benghazi?

You're a real class act huh. :rofl:

Wikileaks has more credibility than most of what I've seen from you so far. After all, anyone who presents information that doesn't gel with your particular brand of paranoia HAS to be a Trump apologist. You have no trouble when someone cites anonymous sources in regards to Trump in some of the articles I've seen you share...yet you protest when I bring up Wikileaks.

He decided to follow the law only when it mattered to him playing president.

Ever hear of something called "due dilligence"? When you own a company and are thinking about partnering with another business, you are suppose to do due diligence to fully understand what your potential liabilites may be up front, and further on down the road.

I'm certain Trump's people did due diligence and decided "**** it". Lots of money to be made. Damn the torpedoes.

That doesn't really sound like anything but him not giving a **** who buys his name, which I'm pretty sure was nothing new. Trump's an unscrupulous douche, what's the scoop?

Source please.

Trump Tower Baku may be President's worst deal ever | Daily Mail Online

Read slowly.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...8814027991.jpg

So...the same info as earlier from a worse source. Thanks.

I want a source on this that is more than bitter assumptions that he is the evil caricature that you know him as.

Google: "Trump Baku"

You'll get a ton of hits. And you don't have to revert back to your D-self once again. Things were going well. I guess you just can't help yourself.

Edit: Over half a million hits. All not relevant but tons are.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourcei...mp+baku+deal&*

You should consider that maybe your discussion style is genuinely bad instead of just assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is an *******.

Do you think that the Daily Mail is a good source? And do you think that the higher the number of google hits you get in a search means that the information is of a higher quality? Search Pizzagate is Real and get back to me on that.

No, you're just an *******.

Good, because it's a terrible source.

Phew, that's good that you don't think that either because that's a bandwagon fallacy and you're better than that. Not really, it's just an expression.