America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,219 comments
  • 1,749,840 views
Today's headlines:
  • Zero evidence that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump
  • Very strong evidence that there was Russian interference in the 2016 Election
  • FBI investigating potential collusion between Russian actors and the Trump campaign
Trump has now slightly shifted his position, he's no longer denying Russian interference and has (as you might expect) moved on to denying involvement from his campaign.

If the FBI finds links (and it's a big IF) then however undesirable Pence might be (and he is, imo) could we see Trump lose the golden prize?

BBC.
 
This really sounds like the entire series of House of Cards.

And frankly, a President Pence scares me way more than Trump ever can. Trump is a loud mouth and we all know what he's doing, how he's feeling, and who he dislikes at any given time because he gives a play-by-play of his life on Twitter worse than some basic white girl eating brunch. Pence is a seasoned politician, all his shadiness will be less vocal and harder to point out.
 
I don't understand the latest developments, Republicans seem to not like Comey now although it was him who won the election for Trump. :confused:
 
GOTMAXPOWER
I don't understand the latest developments, Republicans seem to not like Comey now although it was him who won the election for Trump. :confused:
Click to expand...
Wasn't any different when he reopened the Hillary investigation & pissed off the Democrats. Him winning the election for Trump is a bold claim, though. Hillary had as much to do with it herself because a lot of people simply don't like her, and believed she was a war machine with Russia. Lot of factors played into Trump's win.

Regardless, on Comey, the man has soiled his relationships with both parties, even before this current investigation. Republicans liked him, and then hated him when he dismissed Hillary's investigation. It's been talked about in the Election thread if he'd even have a job for much longer if either candidate had won.
 
DDastardly00
I give a big, well deserved yawn to all of this. No evidence of wire tapping, no evidence of Russia interfering, but there certainly is plenty of political theater going on.
Click to expand...
& that brings with it, a massive level of interesting thought, no?
 
S_Bridge
& that brings with it, a massive level of interesting thought, no?
Click to expand...

A massive level of interesting thought to what, baseless allegations? Which is what they are, baseless. Obama wire tapped me, or the Russians hacked the campaign to make sure Hillary lost. These are just garbage claims unless I see actual evidence that prove otherwise.

I'm tired of seeing valuable time wasted on theater when it could be spent on working on tax reform, a new healthcare bill and so on.
 
GOTMAXPOWER
I don't understand the latest developments, Republicans seem to not like Comey now although it was him who won the election for Trump. :confused:
Click to expand...

How was it him that won the election, the election was shaping up to be Trump's and it's widely accepted that the polls were twisted to give the idea to the public that Hillary was the best option.

What won Trump the election was wikileaks it could be argued, and the under handed acts of the Hillary Campaign coming to light. Which brings us to why we're even seeing an investigation. The only thing (as you ironically tried to make a point of) that Comey did was reopen an investigation. It didn't win the election it was just the icing on a crap cake of lies and issues the Hillary campaign was based on.

Though I agree, the bias of loving or hating Comey is obviously tied to political affiliation. Dems weren't happy of the first or second investigation of Hillary, and republicans weren't happy when Comey said she was guilty but not to the point of a prosecutor charging her. Now the republicans dislike him again because of investigating a link between Russia.
 
GOTMAXPOWER
I don't understand the latest developments, Republicans seem to not like Comey now although it was him who won the election for Trump. :confused:
Click to expand...

McLaren
Wasn't any different when he reopened the Hillary investigation & pissed off the Democrats. Him winning the election for Trump is a bold claim, though. Hillary had as much to do with it herself because a lot of people simply don't like her, and believed she was a war machine with Russia. Lot of factors played into Trump's win.

Regardless, on Comey, the man has soiled his relationships with both parties, even before this current investigation. Republicans liked him, and then hated him when he dismissed Hillary's investigation. It's been talked about in the Election thread if he'd even have a job for much longer if either candidate had won.
Click to expand...

LMSCorvetteGT2
What won Trump the election was wikileaks it could be argued, and the under handed acts of the Hillary Campaign coming to light. Which brings us to why we're even seeing an investigation. The only thing (as you ironically tried to make a point of) that Comey did was reopen an investigation. It didn't win the election it was just the icing on a crap cake of lies and issues the Hillary campaign was based on.
Click to expand...

I think both sides of this argument are probably valid - the following few days after Comey's revelation there was a noticeable enough swing in the polls (which were otherwise pretty steady up to that point):

gdprYZM.png
BJIDKAF.png


Some of that swing may have been due to late-deciding voters - who according to exit polls were mostly breaking for Trump - but, given the election was so close in the end, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that Comey probably won it for him. But the important bit there is "given the election was so close" - because of that there's indeed loads of things that you could single out as the deciding factor. Comey just happened to be the most timely event, being little over a week out from the election.
 
TRGTspecialist
I think both sides of this argument are probably valid - the following few days after Comey's revelation there was a noticeable enough swing in the polls (which were otherwise pretty steady up to that point):

gdprYZM.png
BJIDKAF.png


Some of that swing may have been due to late-deciding voters - who according to exit polls were mostly breaking for Trump - but, given the election was so close in the end, it doesn't seem unreasonable to say that Comey probably won it for him. But the important bit there is "given the election was so close" - because of that there's indeed loads of things that you could single out as the deciding factor. Comey just happened to be the most timely event, being little over a week out from the election.
Click to expand...

Yes and as most of us who were apart of said election thread saw, there was still wide numbers showing a clear Hillary win. Even with the Comey re-open. Also Comey cleared Clinton before the actual election night, so it's hard to take serious the accusation that said second investigation gave Trump the win.

If the second investigation actually held that weight then the first one was clearly prevalent in the minds of voters more so. Once again I feel what allowed Trump to win over that last 4-5% was as you've said final undecided voters/late voters who were using info from Wikileaks more than anything.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Yes and as most of us who were apart of said election thread saw, there was still wide numbers showing a clear Hillary win
Click to expand...

Most polls in the final week showed a clear Hillary lead in the national vote - which turned out to be mostly correct - but that wasn't the same thing as a clear Hillary victory, as a lot of pundits ended up learning the hard way.

In any case the swing (in the polling averages I should add) was there, it's timing linked up well with Comey, and a fraction of its magnitude would have been enough to change the outcome.......it's not something that will ever be proven, but I'd maintain that it's not unreasonable speculation.

LMSCorvetteGT2
Also Comey cleared Clinton before the actual election night, so it's hard to take serious the accusation that said second investigation gave Trump the win.
Click to expand...

That happened right on the eve of the election though - it would've been less likely to influence voters at such a late stage, and it didn't get as much coverage as October Comey (as far as I'm aware). I doubt it would've cancelled out the effects of the original announcement.

Oh and to be clear no, it's not absurd to me at all that people would base their vote on something that had already concluded and made no difference........ this is democracy, logic doesn't always apply. :D

LMSCorvetteGT2
Once again I feel what allowed Trump to win over that last 4-5% was as you've said final undecided voters/late voters who were using info from Wikileaks more than anything.
Click to expand...

Totally agree that probably had a larger effect on the election - I was just talking about events that may have been sufficient to change the minds of (if I remember right) 45,000 people who lived in the right places. There's probably tons of them (and yes, a lot of Hillary's own making).
 
Last edited:
TRGTspecialist
Most polls in the final week showed a clear Hillary lead in the national vote - which turned out to be mostly correct - but that wasn't the same thing as a clear Hillary victory, as a lot of pundits ended up learning the hard way.
Click to expand...

That is the point though, the poll number's were a place holder for what those same pundits and some members of the camp said were a Hillary victory.

In any case the swing (in the polling averages I should add) was there, it's timing linked up well with Comey, and a fraction of its magnitude would have been enough to change the outcome.......it's not something that will ever be proven, but I'd maintain that it's not unreasonable speculation.
Click to expand...

As I've said the couple days prior to the election and a time when many who cared about the election anyways were watching for info would have seen this. Thus if the idea that second investigation actually had an impact is true, then surely so is the idea that it being said she was once again in the clear.

That happened right on the eve of the election though - it would've been less likely to influence voters at such a late stage, and it didn't get as much coverage as October Comey (as far as I'm aware). I doubt it would've cancelled out the effects of the original announcement.
Click to expand...

Articles dated the fifth and sixth say otherwise, that's a couple days prior to the election, early voters who had already voted weren't influenced by this. So you'd have to take the projected numbers from that and and the election itself to actually make an argument if this one blip made the difference. It's much easier to say the sum of all were what caused the issue. And the biggest factor still is Wikileaks part.

Totally agree that probably had a larger effect on the election - I was just talking about events that may have been sufficient to change the minds of (if I remember right) 45,000 people who lived in the right places. There's probably tons of them.
Click to expand...

The problem is wikileaks was consistent and was still a bigger talking point to this than the second investigation all the way up and even after the election itself. So if anything was sufficient to change minds it was that. If the investigation helped fuel more votes for Trump surely it was votes already having it in for Hillary based on the primary investigation. It can be said, because the national news of her being cleared once and then twice would only matter to those who never believed she should have been labeled innocent in the first place.
 
fatkrakr
Left out one.
  • 8 Months of FBI/CIA investigation with Zero evidence Trump/Russian connection.
Click to expand...
Now aside from that being a little presumptuous, given that neither the FBI or the CIA have finished the investigation and stated that no evidence exists.

You seem to forget Flynn, Session, Trump's inconsistent statements regarding business involvement with Russia, campaign members having contact with Assange and at least one Russian hackers.

Now what that is not is proof of conspiracy or collusion, but it's most certainly is evidence of a connection between Trump and the Trump campaign and Russia.
 
Last edited:
Joey D
Pence is a seasoned politician, all his shadiness will be less vocal and harder to point out.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, he's a seasoned politician and understands that he has to at least appear to be serving the entire country and cannot go to war with the rest of the world just because the TV said nasty things about him.

fatkrakr
Left out one.
  • 8 Months of FBI/CIA investigation with Zero evidence Trump/Russian connection.
Click to expand...

That's a hard one to make stick when we've had a national security advisor step down for failing to disclose his communications with the Russian ambassador.

There's connections, but whether they're inappropriate or illegal is still being investigated.
 
Scaff
Now aside from that being a little presumptuous, given that neither the FBI or the CIA have finished the investigation and stated that no evidence exists.

You seem to forget Flynn, Session, Trump's inconsistent statements regarding business involvement with Russia, campaign members having contact with Assange and at least one Russian hackers.

Now what that is not is proof of conspiracy or collusion, but it's most certainly is evidence of a connection between Trump and the Trump campaign and Russia.
Click to expand...

Imari
On the other hand, he's a seasoned politician and understands that he has to at least appear to be serving the entire country and cannot go to war with the rest of the world just because the TV said nasty things about him.



That's a hard one to make stick when we've had a national security advisor step down for failing to disclose his communications with the Russian ambassador.

There's connections, but whether they're inappropriate or illegal is still being investigated.
Click to expand...

Nothing. If they had anything it would already be leaked. The Dems cant hold on to info like that, they would implode.
 
fatkrakr
Nothing. If they had anything it would already be leaked. The Dems cant hold on to info like that, they would implode.
Click to expand...
Nothing?

Did Flynn not resign then, did Sessions not have contact with the Russian's, does a video of Trump acknowledging Russian investment never actually exist?

All of which is evidence (and much more exists) of a connection between Trump, the Trump campaign and Russia; you seem to be conflating evidence (which most certainly does exist) with it proving collusion (which has not yet been established and may not be established).

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/3/21/14983550/fbi-russia-trump-hearing-partisanship

The 'Dems' also have nothing to do with that information existing, its in the public domain.
 
Last edited:
fatkrakr
Nothing. If they had anything it would already be leaked. The Dems cant hold on to info like that, they would implode.
Click to expand...

It's public already.

Whether the connections that have been made public so far are inappropriate or illegal is still be investigated. We also don't know if the ongoing investigations have turned up any more information, depending on what it is the investigators may not want to disclose until they're done for fear of tipping their hand.

You've picked a very odd thing to be adamant about. There are unequivocal connections between the Trump campaign and Russia. You cannot say that there's nothing there at all. You can say that the connections are innocent, but that would be speculation at this point and would seem at odds with the fact that a senior member of government resigned over them.
 
eran0004
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39333424

Why are electronics banned on just a handful of airlines? Are terrorists capable of building bombs in laptops and make them undetectable in the security check, yet unable to fly to the US through another country and with another airline?

I mean, if laptops are a threat they should be banned on all flights. So what exactly is going on?
Click to expand...
Furthermore, you're not allowed to have a laptop as carryon but you can put it in checked baggage. I suppose the logic (and I use the word loosely) is that exploding bombs in the baggage compartment aren't a threat. :rolleyes:
 
eran0004
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39333424

Why are electronics banned on just a handful of airlines? Are terrorists capable of building bombs in laptops and make them undetectable in the security check, yet unable to fly to the US through another country and with another airline?

I mean, if laptops are a threat they should be banned on all flights. So what exactly is going on?
Click to expand...

It seems like another one of those laws that requires the perpetrator to be both extremely intelligent and well informed but also a complete moron at the same time.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
Also Comey cleared Clinton before the actual election night, so it's hard to take serious the accusation that said second investigation gave Trump the win.
Click to expand...

Numerous studies have found that it's much harder to change somebody's mind than it was to get them to accept the initial idea in the first place.

In other words, Comey's first letter, strongly insinuating that Hillary had done something wrong, was readily accepted as true. But the second letter, saying "oops, turns out there's nothing to see here" had much less of an effect on those same people. They had already incorporated that new, incorrect information into their view of Hillary, and from that point, human nature made them resistant to facts that contradicted what they now believed to be true.

This is one of the main reasons that law enforcement usually doesn't comment on investigations before they're finished. It's irresponsible to plant ideas in the public mind when you don't yet know them to be true.

Argue over the scope of the impact of Comey's letters all you want, but you can't deny they had an impact.
 
BobK
Furthermore, you're not allowed to have a laptop as carryon but you can put it in checked baggage. I suppose the logic (and I use the word loosely) is that exploding bombs in the baggage compartment aren't a threat. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I suspect there might be afew reasons - either the projected attack is indeed a bomb attack whose components are more easily discovered in baggage-sniff tests (and if discovered you don't have a perp standing there with a bomb) or it's actually some kind of data attack against the aircraft's electronic infrastructure that requires a human perp to be in control, or the projected attack requires the attacker to form a data uplink to elsewhere for whatever reason (the least likely, imo).
 
TenEightyOne
I suspect there might be afew reasons - either the projected attack is indeed a bomb attack whose components are more easily discovered in baggage-sniff tests (and if discovered you don't have a perp standing there with a bomb) or it's actually some kind of data attack against the aircraft's electronic infrastructure that requires a human perp to be in control, or the projected attack requires the attacker to form a data uplink to elsewhere for whatever reason (the least likely, imo).
Click to expand...

A much simpler explanation is of course that the white house does this to fuel Islamophobia and to show the public that they're acting against some kind of threat. Because it doesn't make any sense from the perspective of preventing an attack as a terrorist could easily take a laptop on board by first flying to another country and then to the US.
 
Hmm If true then the rumoured threat or let say guide line from Trump to Republicans in the congress. Help me get rid of "Obama Care" or loose your place seems kind of a bit "dictator" like. :P

Not quite the Erdogan yet but he is on the path to become an Erdogan Lite.
 
eran0004
A much simpler explanation is of course that the white house does this to fuel Islamophobia and to show the public that they're acting against some kind of threat. Because it doesn't make any sense from the perspective of preventing an attack as a terrorist could easily take a laptop on board by first flying to another country and then to the US.
Click to expand...

Britain is now following suit and enforcing similar bans. As much as I'd like this situation to point a further finger at Trump's madness I suspect it's actually rooted in a genuine intelligence assessment.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
443 444 445
Replies
13K
Views
608K
Scaff
Scaff
Dylan
2025 NASCAR Discussion Thread
Replies
15
Views
2K
Eggstor
Eggstor
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
719K
ZEE
ZEE
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
18K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
721
Dotini
Dotini

Latest Posts

Back