RussiaGate

[Keith&Co.]

Eh, nevermind. Problem solved.

 

[braces_for_impact]

I learned something today!

 

[Horatio Parker]

I learned something today!

Sounds like a good name for a cat.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I learned something today!

Holy crap, he's real?
That was the name of my D&D cleric...

 

[whichphilosophy]

It could be a whole host of errors but you never mentioned the correct definition.

Holy motherfucking Xenu. Definition? My comment was about usage, not any claim that it was removed from the American language or that it didn't refer to black people then, now or a week from next year's Feast of St. Cuthbert.
ANY time you want to figure out what conversation you're having, you're quite welcome to join this one.

Seeing as you are not giving a direct answer to a direct question I take it that Afro-American is an African American. Apart from the urban dictionary below I didn't see anything in the main dictionaries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Afro-American
The Baltimore Afro-American, commonly known as The Afro, is a weekly newspaper published in Baltimore, Maryland, USA. It is the flagship newspaper of the Afro-American chain and the longest-running African-American family-owned newspaper in the United States, established in 1892 by John H. Murphy, Sr.[2][3]

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/afro-american?s=t
noun, adjective
African American.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Afro-American
1. a hyphenated word derived from the prefix 'Afro-', meaning African and the noun 'American', meaning a citizen of the United States of America.

2. used to describe an American of African descent.

3. a term which has fallen out of favor in recent years for the more politically correct two word phrase 'African American'. Possibly due to the fact that people think that the prefix 'Afro-' does not exist or is in some way derogatory. And believe the noun 'Afro', describing a popular 1970's hairstyle is the only definition available.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/afro-american

Afro-American
ADJECTIVE & NOUN
North American
• another term for African American

Until the word changes I shall use African American,though I tend to refer to people by name if I know them and not use race.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

... a term which has fallen out of favor in recent years for the more politically correct two word phrase 'African American'. Possibly due to the fact that people think that the prefix 'Afro-' does not exist or is in some way derogatory. And believe the noun 'Afro', describing a popular 1970's hairstyle is the only definition available.

There have been people in the forum over the years, trolls who have come and gone, who have used terms like "Negro" and "Afro-Marxist." They have done it to push people's buttons because that's what trolls do. So, it isn't so much that the term has fallen out of favor for people idiotically believing it can only be used for the hairstyle or for finding it to be derogatory, it's actually that it has been used in such contexts. So the usage falls out of favor due to negative usage and now also other people know their intents would be ambiguous in using such words. So to be clear about their intent and non-trolling, people will use words that aren't loaded.

I'm not sure what this has to do with RussiaGate, though. Is the Trump administration going to blame an African American for illegally contacting Russia?

 

[Artemus]

Hopefully getting this thread back on track, both National Intelligence Director Coats and NSA Director Rogers said that Trump asked, but did not pressure, them to say publicly that there was no collusion between the campaign and Russia. It seems like a clear pattern of behavior by Trump, culminating with the firing of Comey. Obstruction of justice? By the letter of the law, I believe so. But would it be prosecuted under ordinary circumstances? I think that this all depends on if Mueller finds sufficient evidence of actual collusion by the campaign.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hopefully getting this thread back on track, both National Intelligence Director Coats and NSA Director Rogers said that Trump asked, but did not pressure, them to say publicly that there was no collusion between the campaign and Russia. It seems like a clear pattern of behavior by Trump, culminating with the firing of Comey. Obstruction of justice? By the letter of the law, I believe so. But would it be prosecuted under ordinary circumstances? I think that this all depends on if Mueller finds sufficient evidence of actual collusion by the campaign.

I disagree. The Obstruction of Justice seems pretty clear. If there was collusion, that is a damnable crime! Honestly, I think Mueller will likely have a buffet of crimes to choose from.

 

[whichphilosophy]

... a term which has fallen out of favor in recent years for the more politically correct two word phrase 'African American'. Possibly due to the fact that people think that the prefix 'Afro-' does not exist or is in some way derogatory. And believe the noun 'Afro', describing a popular 1970's hairstyle is the only definition available.

There have been people in the forum over the years, trolls who have come and gone, who have used terms like "Negro" and "Afro-Marxist." They have done it to push people's buttons because that's what trolls do. So, it isn't so much that the term has fallen out of favor for people idiotically believing it can only be used for the hairstyle or for finding it to be derogatory, it's actually that it has been used in such contexts. So the usage falls out of favor due to negative usage and now also other people know their intents would be ambiguous in using such words. So to be clear about their intent and non-trolling, people will use words that aren't loaded.

I'm not sure what this has to do with RussiaGate, though. Is the Trump administration going to blame an African American for illegally contacting Russia?

Thanks. This also why it's important to state the clear reasoning why words are offensive.

 

[Opoponax]

Hopefully getting this thread back on track, both National Intelligence Director Coats and NSA Director Rogers said that Trump asked, but did not pressure, them to say publicly that there was no collusion between the campaign and Russia. It seems like a clear pattern of behavior by Trump, culminating with the firing of Comey. Obstruction of justice? By the letter of the law, I believe so. But would it be prosecuted under ordinary circumstances? I think that this all depends on if Mueller finds sufficient evidence of actual collusion by the campaign.

It's just another brick in the wall of evidence that we're learning about as time goes on. This by itself, isn't especially damning, but taken with everything else, it's still important. It continues to establish motive and intent along with contributing to the overall pattern of attempting to influence an ongoing investigation.

To Trump supporters, it's one little meaningless thing that is an example of how libtards are blowing everything out of proportion. That the bricks are mounting is something they can't see. Even if the wall falls on them they won't blame it on Trump or the GOP, they'll blame it on that great family of people who all have the first name Whatabout (Mr. Whatabout Obama, Mrs. Whatabout Clinton, etc.).

As for collusion, well, that story seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle of the daily WTF that's become U.S. political discourse and in/action. If there was collusion, then to me it boils down to two things:

1. Trump knew about it and;
a. Actively encouraged it; or
b. Did nothing to discourage it

2. Trump didn't know about it, which
a. Shows how utterly unaware he is of what goes on around him; and
b. Shows how incredibly dangerous it is for him to be sitting in the White House

Both are alarming, and by any standard ever adhered to or even speculated over in American discourse, it should be more than enough to get him the boot. But that would be really inconvenient for the GOP. What should be a five alarm fire in order to contain what could amount to the most serious damage ever done to the overall security of the country is obfuscated and brushed under the rug by the GOP and its propaganda outlets.

 

[Elixir]

Hopefully getting this thread back on track, both National Intelligence Director Coats and NSA Director Rogers said that Trump asked, but did not pressure, them to say publicly that there was no collusion between the campaign and Russia. It seems like a clear pattern of behavior by Trump, culminating with the firing of Comey. Obstruction of justice? By the letter of the law, I believe so. But would it be prosecuted under ordinary circumstances? I think that this all depends on if Mueller finds sufficient evidence of actual collusion by the campaign.

It's just another brick in the wall of evidence that we're learning about as time goes on. This by itself, isn't especially damning, but taken with everything else, it's still important. It continues to establish motive and intent along with contributing to the overall pattern of attempting to influence an ongoing investigation.

To Trump supporters, it's one little meaningless thing that is an example of how libtards are blowing everything out of proportion. That the bricks are mounting is something they can't see. Even if the wall falls on them they won't blame it on Trump or the GOP, they'll blame it on that great family of people who all have the first name Whatabout (Mr. Whatabout Obama, Mrs. Whatabout Clinton, etc.).

As for collusion, well, that story seems to keep getting lost in the shuffle of the daily WTF that's become U.S. political discourse and in/action. If there was collusion, then to me it boils down to two things:

1. Trump knew about it and;
a. Actively encouraged it; or
b. Did nothing to discourage it

2. Trump didn't know about it, which
a. Shows how utterly unaware he is of what goes on around him; and
b. Shows how incredibly dangerous it is for him to be sitting in the White House

Both are alarming, and by any standard ever adhered to or even speculated over in American discourse, it should be more than enough to get him the boot. But that would be really inconvenient for the GOP. What should be a five alarm fire in order to contain what could amount to the most serious damage ever done to the overall security of the country is obfuscated and brushed under the rug by the GOP and its propaganda outlets.

If I had to bet, I'd bet that Trump knew about it for a long time and kept himself insulated to preserve credible deniability, while encouraging his foot servants to keep stoking the fire. He will never be nailed for collusion if that's the case.
What might get him, is the fact that he DID know that Flynn represented a security threat and still kept inviting him to daily intelligence briefings. If it is proven that he knew, then it's just a matter of Dems winning the House in '18 and he'll be on the hot seat.

Meanwhile...

This also why it's important to state the clear reasoning why words are offensive.

^ This is why it's important to get rid of Betsy DeVos as soon as possible. Sheesh!

 

[Artemus]

If I had to bet, I'd bet that Trump knew about it for a long time

"What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

It all comes down to that. Funny how history repeats itself.

If he honestly thought that it was all just a witch hunt it by the "nut case" Comey then it will be tough to get him removed. No president has ever been removed for gross incompetence. Mueller's report will be critical.

 

[Elixir]

No president has ever been removed for gross incompetence.

In my possibly faulty recollection, every President since JFK has been declared grossly incompetent by the opposition Party. (JFK would probably have been too, if he had lived long enough.)
Now we have the first truly and obviously grossly incompetent President, but wolf has been cried so many times that it falls on deaf ears.

If he honestly thought that it was all just a witch hunt it by the "nut case" Comey then it will be tough to get him removed.

Cheato seems to have gotten away with the "I'm new to the job, didn't know..." excuse regarding his inappropriate contacts with Comey et. al., despite having railed against Hillary for Bill's inappropriate contact with Loretta Lynch. So I expect he can continue to plead his stupidity indefinitely, no matter how clearly it is shown that he knew Flynn was a blackmail risk, Jared lied on his security clearance forms etc.. After all, stupidity seems to be something he has in infinite supply...

 

[Artemus]

Trump just admitted that he doesn't have tapes of his conversation with Comey. I'll add that he has also violated the letter of witness-intimidation laws. Doesn't work at well with seasoned federal investigators as it did in your real estate deals, does it Donny?

This may ultimately have more impact than the actual firing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Trump just admitted that he doesn't have tapes of his conversation with Comey. I'll add that he has also violated the letter of witness-intimidation laws. Doesn't work at well with seasoned federal investigators as it did in your real estate deals, does it Donny?

This may ultimately have more impact than the actual firing.

Smart move; Comey had to be careful what he said.

 

[Artemus]

Trump just admitted that he doesn't have tapes of his conversation with Comey. I'll add that he has also violated the letter of witness-intimidation laws. Doesn't work at well with seasoned federal investigators as it did in your real estate deals, does it Donny?

This may ultimately have more impact than the actual firing.

Smart move; Comey had to be careful what he said.

Showing yourself to be completely untrustworthy is always a brilliant move.

 

[Elixir]

Smart move; Comey had to be careful what he said.

Showing yourself to be completely untrustworthy is always a brilliant move.

Untrustworthy? No biggie - that's just Trump being Trump. </trumpsucker>

 

[Opoponax]

Trump just admitted that he doesn't have tapes of his conversation with Comey. I'll add that he has also violated the letter of witness-intimidation laws. Doesn't work at well with seasoned federal investigators as it did in your real estate deals, does it Donny?

This may ultimately have more impact than the actual firing.

In reading over conservative boards, the response there is not "Oh no, he got caught lying again." Rather, it's "Hahahaha! He made the libtards chase their tails and is driving them crazy! Greatest POTUS ever!"

We're so fucked.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Smart move; Comey had to be careful what he said.

Showing yourself to be completely untrustworthy is always a brilliant move.

All warfare is deception Sun Tzu.

Indeed there is a war of sorts.
If Trump had followed the Queensbury rules than anyone could have spun anything.

Actually all presidents should record all presidential business. Too bad.

If a person is honest they do not object to their business conversations being recorded. Dishonest people do object.

- - - Updated - - -

Showing yourself to be completely untrustworthy is always a brilliant move.

Untrustworthy? No biggie - that's just Trump being Trump. </trumpsucker>

I would say this was necessary to prevent yarns being spun.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump just admitted that he doesn't have tapes of his conversation with Comey. I'll add that he has also violated the letter of witness-intimidation laws. Doesn't work at well with seasoned federal investigators as it did in your real estate deals, does it Donny?

This may ultimately have more impact than the actual firing.

With all of the recently reported electronic surveillance, intercepts, unmasking and illegal leaking of information, I have no idea...

...whether there are "tapes" or recordings of my conversations with James Comey, but I did not make, and do not have, any such recordings.

Does Trump even understand how electronic surveillance works? That it typically requires using an electronic device and for that signal to be picked up by others? He seems to be suggesting the CIA or FBI could have bugged the White House.

So after all of this, he responds about it via a fucking Tweet?! Trump may be the greatest troll to ever live.