What Trump supporters would like the rest of us to believe.

Here is what Trump supporters want you lefties to believe. We want you to believe your own eyes. Do you see yourself or your relatives getting back to work? Do you see your bank account getting bigger? Do you see him chipping away at the trade imbalance that cost your and your relatives their jobs under Obama?
Did you notice manufacturing coming back to this country, and if so how has that hurt you exactly? Do you see with your own eyes the booming economy? No? Well if you can't believe your own eyes then we are wasting our time.

 

Not complaining, just noting and mentioning. I wish you would stop trying to characterize my emotions. It's rude and arrogant.

If Barr wanted to investigate the Bidens via the proper protocol, he would, and he would make it known. He has Durham investigating the tin foil hat conspiracy theory about Ukrain, not Russia, being the culprits behind hacking the 2016 election. In spite of having launched this official investigation into what is, essentially, a Russian fairy tale cooked up by Russian intelligence services, Barr is also doing a lot of traveling, asking foreign heads of state to help with that investigation, as well as asking specific countries mention in the Mueller report to help with the origins of the FBI's 2016 Russia probe.

https://theweek.com/speedreads/8688...st-another-iffy-trumpinstigated-investigation

I have two reasons to question these actions of Barrs: 1. Barr is trying to be secretive about it, making it seem like he knows this isn't kosher, and 2. Trump would be his only client here, and Barr is not supposed to work for Trump, he's supposed to work for us.

It's shady, and you're quite wrong about me being the only one with a problem with that. Just because the participants on this forum aren't mentioning this doesn't mean no one else is concerned.

 

Barr announced the investigation into the origins of the Trump counter intelligence probe back in May. It wasn't an investigation into "the tin foil hat conspiracy theory about Ukrain, not Russia, being the culprits behind hacking the 2016 election." That's a mis-characterization by quite a bit.

Whether the Biden probe is wrapped up into this probe or another, I don't know, but since Trump referenced the Attorney General as a point of contact in his "transcript," it seems like a legitimate DoJ investigation. Some reporter should actually ask Barr about that.

As for the Ukraine, that story has been reported in the news (not in conspiracy blogs or wherever you imagine it comes from) for years. I posted about it in March of 2017:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...administration.500324/page-34#post-1067249074

So maybe you could parse out what exactly is the conspiracy theory in this?

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

 

Regarding Burisma and the Bidens: the video clip of Joe Biden bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor general pusted was out of context. The right has long used that to point corruption fingers at Joe. But two things: 1. Biden was part of a international effort to pust that prosecutor not because he was investigatin Burisma, but because he wasn't. In fact, the problem with that guy was his coziness with corrupt oligarchs. 2. There has never been a shred of proof that Hunter Biden did anything illegal or corrupt. Stupid to take the job, but not illegal.

As to why Burisma was paying Hunter so much, that's kind of their business, isn't it? If it was to curry favor with his father, and in turn with the Obama administration, I've seen nothing to indicate that Burisma received any kind of special favors or consideration there.

As for Ukraine hack7ng the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton, sorry but that IS a tin foil hat conspiracy theory, one that originated with Russian intelligence and Putin.

https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...nterfere-in-the-2016-election-Three-questions

"Independent experts say that is unequivocally a conspiracy theory. According to Mr. Trump’s own former national security adviser Thomas Bossert, it has been “totally debunked.” "

"Some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country, and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian Security Services themselves.” -- Dr. Fiona Hill

 

Wow, you addressed exactly zero of my comment. I sometimes wonder why I bother. But I guess I do want to know where exactly you got this claim, and what does it have to do with the article I posted? "As for Ukraine hack7ng the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton, sorry but that IS a tin foil hat conspiracy theory, one that originated with Russian intelligence and Putin."

 

Hmmm, let's see. Burisma was under investigation until the Biden threat according to recent testimony. The Obama administration was so worried about it that they used it during confirmation hearings for Yovanovitch. Now the lefties want to claim it is 'debunked' without any investigation. Don't worry, we recognize the hypocrisy.

 

Your article on the Ukraine-is-the-bad-guy is from nearly three years ago. Since then, it has been well and truly debunked. My article is from a couple of days ago.

Sorry if I didn't address your link directly. Given how old it is, I thought you were kidding.

 

Wow.

That article never said anything about "Ukraine hack7ng the 2016 election on behalf of Clinton." So how could that article have been debunked when it didn't mention anything about hacking as you claimed it did?

Clearly, you didn't read the article, but you did read the current talking points, and just blindly repeated them without any thought. If this article is actually debunked, why don't you go through and point out which parts have been debunked?

 

This was your link from comment #228.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Is that not an article from 2017? Is it not about Ukraine trying to sabotage the 2016 election?

 

A. Yes it's from 2017. I'm not clear what the relevance of that is however.

B, You claimed it was about Ukrainian hacking. That was incorrect.

 

So basically your argument is look at the good and ignore the bad. Sorry my friend, I leave that to the partisans. Do you look only at the good on the left to the exclusion of the bad? As an independent centrist with no loyalty to any political party I assess both the good and the bad in both parties.

 

By "Ukrainian hacking" I meant the hacking of the DNC, spreading propaganda via our social media platforms, and the whole sorry mess that Russia did in 2016. I thought you would understand the reference. Sorry, I guess I should have been more clear.

The whole tin foil hat conspiracy -- and let me be perfectly clear this time that I'm referring to the idiotic story that Ukraine hacked us, and spread dirty lies against Trump on Hillary's behalf, and that somehow there is a DNC server hiding somewhere in Ukraine -- was long ago shown to be a bogus bunch of bull pucky cooked up by Russian intelligence services on behalf of Putin. Believing this nonsense and spreading it is exactly what ol' Vlad wants us to do, ergo those who do so are playing Putin's hand for him. Good work.

 

You claimed that that the "Ukrainian hacking" story was a conspiracy theory. Actually you were the only one who every mentioned a "Ukrainian hacking" story. So, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. No one has claimed that the Ukraine hacked us.

You're trying to claim a conspiracy theory that has never existed...bizarre. Meanwhile you keep dodging the content of the article I posted about in #228. Could you actually address that for a change instead of these weird, made up tangents about Ukrainian hacking that no one has ever claimed?

 

Oh ffs! Maybe it would help if you knew the many meanings of the word "hack."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hack

The term is used loosely to mean many things, such as a "program fix on the fly" or a "life hack," but since the subtleties seem to escape you, let's pretend I used the word "interfere" instead. Does that help? Sorry if my word choices confused you.

Tangents. Sheesh.

 

Tangents indeed. So you are saying that you meant hacking to cover, NOT the type of hacking Russia was accused of (phishing and breaking into computer systems) but some other non computer related version of hacking?

OK what specifically are you referring to as hacking?

 

I doubt that. You continue to think that Trump's motivation was politics rather than dealing with corruption. There is no evidence of that.

See above. Get some proof if you want to change minds.

 

So do I. So what?

 

Okay, what is the bad? under Trump? I'll wait......................................oh, and what was the good under Obama? I'll wait...............................Zzzzzzzz sorry I dozed off waiting.