Are you suggesting that what they did wasn't treasonous? Or that had the Espionage act not existed, we wouldn't have been able to convict them of treason?

You'll note the Judge specifically uses the word treason in his sentencing:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius...and_conviction

You voted for and still support someone who "betrayed this country" in that same way LOL

I mean, when ****ing wil is the voice of reason on the right, you know you've gone off the deep end

It is unfair to borderline libelous to blame Obama for the disaster in the Middle East. He inherited the mess from his predecessor who is squarely to blame for the Middle East fiasco that exists today.

Is this a trick question? Lock the doors and let me play Trump HU all day every day. If he ever was a multi billionaire, he'd be trying to pawn off his last gold plated toilet seat by the time it was over.

I agree with this and is why I was so disappointed in him by the end. He squandered all his political capital by trying to always being reasonable, willing to negotiate, and being fair. He should've shoved liberal values down the GOP's throats when he had the chance just like they would've/will do to us.

Trump is a buffoon who can't keep his yap shut or emotions in check even when it's to his own detriment. See the Lester Holt interview for a perfect example.

This is what makes him a bumbling idiot and makes us citizens of a leaderless country for at least the next 4 years.

I've already agreed the media is being overly trite in its criticism of Trump. I don't see anything they're saying that's wrong, but they should focus on the more important things (like how the current GOP healthcare plan, or lack thereof, is going to be a complete and total disaster).

Also, he's got BOTH houses! His self inflicted war with the media is no excuse for not getting things done! Let's say the media gives him a break. What do you think he would've accomplished that he hasn't already? Certainly not his illegal Muslim ban. Definitely not the stupid wall his gullible supporters thought was ever going to be built. What? What has the media prevented him from getting done?

Honestly talking to people like goofyballer and microbet (a LOT of liberals are like this) is like trying to talk sense to a 3 year old. There is nothing Trump could do, and nothing you can say, to change their opinion of him in even the slightest way. They made this emotional detachment probably very initially in the campaign. Any positive thing he does is lessened by the fact that they hate him, and any negative thing he does is exaggerated as well. Every thing he says good or bad just increases their hate for him. He can do no right in their eyes, just like in the eyes of the media, and trying to have a rational conversation with them is totally pointless. I mean this basically proves they are partisan and biased, and so the conversation is over anyway.

I actually feel sorry for people like this. I never liked Obama but I never hated him. I don't think I could ever hate anyone this much. Can you imagine being so blinded by hate over someone that said something you didn't like that you lose all your rational capacity? But hey, I'm not as tolerant, compassionate or loving as our progressive friends so what do I know lol.

Can you name some positive things Trump has done that we should acknowledge? Serious question.

Take it to the mirror.

NSFW or trumpflakes

LOL, more dream worlds where conservatives believe things like this are actually true.

In reality, what happens when we wind up talking is...
- you claim liberals didn't say **** about al-Awlaki's droning, an objectively false claim, then spend dozens of posts backpedaling when shown to be wrong instead of just manning up to your mistake
- you make the very stupid claim that the LAT/USC poll was accurate (it wasn't)
- in the same post where you advance the intellectual lazy claim that liberals "resort to emotional appeal and smear tactics" you, two sentences later, blow away all irony meters by posting that liberals will be "suppressing right wing viewpoints period, and then we've regressed to the times of Pravda and Gulag"
- make really dumb arguments like this and slink away rather than respond to being challenged

These are just a few examples from a very short time of you posting here! You're at wil levels of regularly being wrong about things, yet blame liberals for the fact that you can't seem to have productive conversations with others through your own lack of knowledge!

There's a reason why you ignore all the posts where liberals actually challenge things you say, and instead seek out the safe spaces of fellow conservatives where you can all circle-jerk about the opinions you share. The post you just fawned over was accusing liberals of actual treason, and that stupidity isn't critically analyzed or challenged by you for even a moment!

idk why you are so caught up with the word treason

maybe the word is too harsh, who cares, the point is the media are completely dishonest regarding trump

name the things hes done in favor of multinationals

It's a word that means something. You cannot on one hand complain about liberals calling people "fascists" and Trump "Hitler" while on the other casually toss around accusations of treason and be like "oh, sorry liberal snowflake, is that too harsh". Either accuracy and nuance matter, or they don't, pick one and stick with it.

You said corporations, not specifically "multinationals" - always be shifting them goalposts. And as for what he's done in favor of corporations, the better question might be what has he done that wasn't in the interest of corporations? Killing TPP might be the only thing, I can't think of anything else. All of his regulatory rollback is clearly to the benefit of corporations.

rolling back regulations in favor of corporations is just wrong

corporations want more regulations because they have the capital and lawyers to deal with it in a cost effective way. Its the small/medium size businesses that regulations really hurt and prevent them from competing with the large established firms.

a little bit of cost for high barriers of entry is corporate friendly.

Trump signs bill killing Obama-era worker safety rule

There's nothing about a barrier to entry here, the goal is 100% making it easier for corporations to get away with safety violations at the expense of their employees. You seriously think defense contractors were pumping their fists like "YES!" when this rule was originally passed???

Like:

the entirety of conservative orthodoxy is based on rejecting this view. Conservatives are viewed as the corporate-friendly party because they reject regulation!

why did hillary get the most corporate money of any candidate ever this election?

corporations know what they want, and thats a neo lib who'll hoist regulations on small and mid sized buisnesses and keep them out

hillary alert! hillary alert!

When trump pulled out of the Paris accord 28 large corporations signed an open letter in protest.

the media gleefully reported on this not realizing that this directly plays into trumps base. Its obvious that corporations like regulation when you see who they donate to and what they like.

That's a legitimate question, but I think "because they thought she would win and they wanted to have influence with the winning side" is a good explanation as well.

Your argument is that, like,
- energy companies fist pumped when the Clean Air Act was passed and the EPA was created
- Wall Street was thrilled when Dodd-Frank was passed
- <insert industry here> was thrilled when <rules restricting their ability to make money to reduce negative externalities were enacted>

That makes no sense.

its a complicated issue so its not black and white, for every company every regulation hurts their bottom line but it hurts the bottom line for smaller companies more

the internet has immense competition and new company emerge and force buyouts (snap chat) or displace (facebook) existing companies all the time because of its low regulation.

pharma is highly regulated and no new company has any chance. It costs an average of 800-1 billion these days to bring a new drug to market in the USA because of all the regulatory burdens you have to bear in a decade long process.

for most companys on top they would prefer to be in the pharma environment than the online environment.

...and your argument is that Merck, Pfizer, etc prefer this?

It does create a barrier to entry but it's a pretty big leap from "it protects their market position" to "they PREFER to incur billions of dollars in costs".

And again, what about things like worker safety laws that Trump is intent on dismantling and have nothing to do with barrier to entry? What about things like Dodd-Frank that Trump wants to dismantle in an industry where barrier to entry is already high and big banks don't need protection?

Trump repealed the fry cooks are managers loophole closure that Obama did which would have made more people fall under hourly pay and time and a half.

He also rejected the ruling that financial people had to work in their client's best interest, basically green lighting the fleecing of Joe Worker that had been going on.

There's legit no point in even talking about it, because you'll just argue and throw it out.

I'm actually pretty fair handed when it comes to talking about politics. The more I see liberals not being this way, the farther to the right I go. A lot of the population feels the same way. Can't wait for the reckoning tbh.

The fact that everyone has had some loss doesn't mean obstacles in their way have been of the same magnitude. I don't know how you can be so bad at anticipating the obvious counter point to what you write. It's almost like you just want to drag conversations on just for the sake of racking up posts.

Children don't make autonomous, informed choices wrt what languages they'll speak (much less the countries they'll immigrate to) until at least their late teens and probably their mid 20s - and very few people will get to a level of fluency that's comparable to native speakers. This is even more important when it comes to life skills and a plan for the future. You can do it later in life but you're at a huge disadvantage if you're only able to start picking up the pieces in your 20s. This is a big part of why some people have to work really hard to succeed and others can just coast.

I'm not disagreeing that the large majority have the ability to succeed if they're willing to work hard enough. The original post and point of contention was you suggesting that all people who succeed need to work hard, and that's just not true.

bahahahahaha story checks out

In addition to being wil-level wrong all the time, he has wil-level self awareness

Come on he is fair handed and jonzing for the reckoning.

Anyway I hate to interrupt the permanent state of this thread as being a derailed cluster**** with some actual news, but here are some nothingburgers for y'all.

Donald Trump Jr., in March interviews with the New York Times:

On Saturday, NYT reports that Trump Jr., along with Kushner and Manafort, met with a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer in June 2016. Trump Jr. admits this to be true, and says in his statement about it:

So, one lie down. Trump Jr. says he didn't meet with Russians before, at least, none that were set up and certainly not as a member of the campaign. Oops.

In addition, the Russian lawyer in question said about the meeting:

Nothing about the campaign? Oh, okay.

Today: Trump Jr.'s meeting with Russian lawyer was set up because he was promised dirt on Hillary

Trump Jr.'s statement changes:

Oh, so the campaign was discussed. And as a bonus, courtesy of the main forum, here's Trump Jr. saying six weeks after he met with a Russian promising him dirt on Hillary that there's no reason to think Russia could possibly want to hurt Hillary.




And with that, back to your regularly scheduled programming about treasonous liberals and how wil is just the smartest, most successful person we've ever met.