Social Question

jca2's avatar

Am I way off base, or is it accurate to say there's a lot of Repubs using verbal insult against Dems but not the other way around?

Asked by jca2 (3727points) 2 weeks ago

I’m not referring to Fluther only, but just in general. Real life, internet, FB, etc.

In real life and on the internet, I see a lot of slurs against Democrats, “libtards” and “stupid liberals” and stuff like that. A lot of finger pointing, “you liberals” blah blah blah.

I don’t see it going in the other direction.

Am I mistaken?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

134 Answers

Caravanfan's avatar

You’re way off base. There are plenty of instances where Dems insult Republicans.

Darth_Algar's avatar

No, it is not accurate to say that.

josie's avatar

I think you are mistaken. There seems to be plenty of abuse going in both directions.

But it is absolutely true that each side is certain they are virtuous, and the other guys are being shitty.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Rep/cons would say false or the Dem/libs started it.
or I know both sides do it whats the big deal?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

That about sums it up^^^^^^^^^

ucme's avatar

Americanos are totally fucking obssessed with religion & politics, constant labelling & vitriol marks them out as, in the main, crass, loud jerk offs.

KNOWITALL's avatar

I would also say it goes both ways pretty evenly, but I have to admit that what I see is mostly Dems bashing Reps. Even on the FB Tidepool. It wasn’t even this bad when Obama was in office, that I recall.

Demosthenes's avatar

It depends on your community and whom you surround yourself with. I also think insults tend to be different depending on the people using them. For example, I see the word “libtard” thrown around a lot, but little use of “conservaturd”. That doesn’t mean that liberals aren’t just as insulting. They just don’t do it “that way” as much.

But to quote Hillary Clinton: what does it matter? If you’re trying to prove that one side is “worse” than the other, you’re not going to be able to do that. Everyone’s experiences are different.

Dutchess_III's avatar

It goes both ways. However, the Dems are far more on point than the Republicans. The Republicans go out of their way to make stuff up.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Liberals just don’t dance around their name calling. Your either with them or you are racist Nazi. And no, republicans don’t go out of their way to make stuff up. A good bit is fitting and right on point. It’s always the fringes hurling insults so whatever they say to each other odds are there is some truth to it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

“Rudy Giuliani claimed “Under those eight years before Obama came along, we didn’t have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the United States. They all started when (Hillary) Clinton and Obama got into office,”
That isn’t made up? Or is it just stupid?

And the conspiracy theories are insane! They’re hilarious!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@ARE_you_kidding_me “Your either with them or you are racist Nazi”

Exactly, and for the Reps, you either approve of killing defenseless babies or not.

Seems pretty equal to me…lol

Dutchess_III's avatar

And it’s that kind of phrasing, taking things out of context, exaggerating the situation, that degrades the credibility of ALL conservatives @KNOWITALL.

And once again you made my point perfectly for me.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Darth_Algar's avatar

@KNOWITALL ” It wasn’t even this bad when Obama was in office, that I recall.”

You either have selective memory or you weren’t paying attention.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
ragingloli's avatar

A long time ago, but I remember like it was yesterday, one of them crowed how liberals believe fake news because it says what they want to hear, then claiming that Drumpf never called Biden a “low IQ individual”, and that he never misspelled his name as “Bidan”, calling it “fake news”, and then someone dug out the actual tweets in less than 5 minutes.
But that is ancient history now. I doubt the guy even remembers it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I don’t think you’re off base @jca2.

Yellowdog's avatar

I’m STILL waiting to see those tweets, @ragingloli

I’ve been wrong before.

Trump said in a tweet that Kim Jong Un referred to Biden as a “low I.Q. individual.” No name was misspelled. Trump has tweeted the name Biden over 50 times.

Dutchess_III's avatar

They were there! Geez. I’ll go get it.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, presumably he’s spelled “hamburger” correctly in his life in the past too @Yellowdog. And “conversation.”

stanleybmanly's avatar

What floors me about all of this is this insane inability to look and listen to the man and conclude anything other than the fact that he is both inept and despicable. I mean at this point, what sort of investigation or proof is actually required to recognize and admit this? Just LOOK at him. If one of YOUR friends or someone in YOUR family behaved like THAT, would you put up with it?

Dutchess_III's avatar

I would be embarrassed as hell to be associated with a family member who acted like that.

Dutchess_III's avatar

There was a meme that was roughly like this. It answers your question @stanleybmanly:

Mueller: “If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

What trump and his fan base heard: ”If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”

stanleybmanly's avatar

You GET it. And those resisting what’s in front of their nose—get it too! I Absolutely refuse to accept that so many can truthfully be SO dense.

ragingloli's avatar

You think he is “still waiting” for those tweets?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Hey @stanleybmanly I can truly believe they are that DENSE.

Yellowdog's avatar

Well, I just listened to Trump’s commencement address to the Air Force Academy—didn’t exactly sound like a crazy person, or even anyone under stress. One of the most inspiring addresses in history and probably will be recorded somewhere as one such.

The Air Force Academy did not respond anything like this to Obama, apologizing for America and re-establishing bonds with Cuba’s dictator.

And, I don’t think declaring one’s innocence is a sign of obstruction.

I listened to Mueller’s ten minutes again. I want to point out that not only did he not name any crime, but he said that it is “unconstitutional” to charge a sitting president with a crime, and that’s why he couldn’t charge the President with said unnamed, unknown crime.

I want to point out that it is NOT unconstitutional to indict a sitting president. It is not even against the law. It is against DOJ guidelines—which, according to Barr and Rosenstien, do not have to be followed. And according to Barr, Rosenstien, and the DOJ, Mueller said on three occasions was not a factor in their decision not to indict, in spite of what Mueller said yesterday.

All this noise is because, even though there was no crime, there was no “proof of innocence.” Kind of like trying to charge someone with shoplifting a day later because the accused cannot produce a receipt, though store security cameras and other exculpatory evidences do not show that a crime occurred and may even prove otherwise. That lack of a receipt a day later is not proof of guilt.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What the hell are you talking about? It took the fkn MORON 2 and a half years to learn to read a speech and you brag about it as an achievement? He cannot stick to a script, has the attention span of a doorknob, and managed through some miracle to open and close his mouth for 10 minutes without embarrassing himself AND his country and YOU have the unheralded lack of comprehension to once again compare him to OBAMA?? You frighten me.

Yellowdog's avatar

The criminalization of political differences, using federal law enforcement, which Obama DID, is what is REALLY frightening.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Trump threatened his staff members to N O T to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

DUH !!!!

Cover my ass or I’ll get your ass. It is Gestapo !

Yellowdog's avatar

The White House has already submitted over 1,400,000 DOCUMENTS to the Mueller investigation, and ALL of his staff members have already given 30 hours or more of testimony to the Mueller investigation. This was the FOURTH time his staff gave testimony. Some of them aren’t millionares and cannot afford the million dollars worth of attorneys they will need to not be put in a “perjury trap” if they are questioned by this insane mob of ravenous zealots.

After all this transparency, it just becomes harassment. There is no way the mad zealots in the house of representatives can do a more throrough investigation than the Mueller investigation—by far the most exhaustive in U.S. History. They are only wanting to entrap some of the witnesses and charge them so that they testify against Trump or go to jail.

This is why, after three years of cooperating with Federal investigations, Trump finally instigated executive privilege.

Congress cannot even establish a Grand Jury—what more can they do that wasn’t already done?

stanleybmanly's avatar

What they can do is subpoena Trump’s tax and business records as well as Mueller himself. Listen to the last sentence of Mueller’s statement and tell me if it sounds like an exoneration to you.

Yellowdog's avatar

Mueller is no friend of Trump. Never was,

Just because Mueller’s team couldn’t find collusion doesn’t mean they exonerated Trump or ever intended to, or were on his “side” or even neutral or unbiased.

The Mueller investigation explored every possible crime for everyone involved with Trump and indicted a few for unrelated and process crimes— but never really followed where Russia Collusion actually led. Hint: Obama ignored the threat and the Obama administration let it happen on their watch, The Dossier was Russian disinformation itself, yet was utilized as evidence in the Mueller investigation. How ironic is that?

Evidently it never occurred to question its origin or follow the origin of the entire investigation. Or the Democrat sources.

As for the tax returns and business records,
I have to ask, would YOU trust your tax returns or business records to that team of rabid maniacs? They could engage in all kinds of criminal activity themselves if they had that kind of access.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

BUT^^^ If he had found evidence that would have exonerated your orange hair god, he would have brought that forward he said so in the newspaper article I read.
He found no such evidence.
He wasn’t looking for evidence to hang Clinton on, so stop beating that dead horse.
Every time something bad or negative is said about your orange hair super star you instantly say this or that about the left, deflection is getting fucking old, if there was significant evidence to send Hilary up the river Trump would have done so.
NOW don’t all President wanna be’s have to submit their tax returns?
I remember Romney bitching about it but he did do it, why is Trump special that he doesn’t have to?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY Its not required, no. Most will give them voluntarily, for votes, for ‘transparency’, but if people cant even understand that bankruptcy is a business move that often is a good thing, how can you release complex taxes? He’d immediately be called a shyster, things pointed out one by one, bad or not. No good can come of it, either way.

Did you look over your countrys officials taxes? Would you care about Trumps if shade werent being thrown? I wouldnt. Didnt study any Presidents taxes in my life lol. Bet not many liberals cared before either. Its the same thing as Obamas birth certificate, just political bs.

Yellowdog's avatar

You cannot find evidence of a crime that did not happen. .

And you cannot establish that a person is innocent. You can ONLY prove that something DID occur,

As I said earlier, trying to find a crime that didn’t happen by saying you cannot prove that it did NOT happen—is like saying that someone stole from a store because a day later they cannot produce a receipt for their purchase. And you have no evidence on camera or any eyewitnesses. Just the person a day later has no receipt,

You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that there are no black swans. You can only prove that there ARE.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Bankruptcy a good thing?
Sure screwing lots of hardworking trades people and labourers out of hard earned wages, then buying the projects back for pennies on the dollar and being concerned not coming off looking like a shyster?
Then running for President of your country say I’m all for the working man, sure and what gets me is red necks and the right wing extremists believe him.
What really gets me after raking up extreme debt and giving the wealthy huge tax breaks the red neck working class still defend him.

Yellowdog's avatar

⅓ of American voters are not rednecks and right-wing extremists,, I can assure you.
Look at a map of the United States which depicts which counties voted red and which voted blue. The overwhelming majority of the country is red—just a few densely populated blue areas in cities—cities of decay and homeless problems.

What you’re saying about Trump being a shyster—well, prove it.
Find out how the working people, the blue collar workers the manufacturers, are all back to work and prospering. That s reality. And it certainly flies in the face of what you are alleging.

Compare that with the Democrat-controlled districts on the West Coast, especiallyCalifornia and Oregon, and also New York City, Chicago, etc etc. In the Democrat-controlled areas there are homeless people, meth and phentenol, needles, human feces, rats, fleas, and medieval diseases such as Typhoid actually infesting. The people who live and work in these cities pay high taxes and cannot even use their parks and playgrounds. They are too full of feces, needles, dangerous people, and diseases that have not been seen since the middle ages.

These are not just third-world diseases. They are medieval plagues which we haven’t even seen in third world countries. The third world countries don’t even allow this vermin and disease and malaise. This is the greatest threat to America, not Trump’s taxes or successful economic policies.

Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, all the Democratic hopefuls—all of them millionaires living in multi-million dollar homes, condos and apartments while feces and needles and rats and fleas infest the populations around them, and hard-working people pay their salaries and for the parks and wretched libraries and health services cannot even be used.

This is the America that is decaying under the Democrat’s watch. And you are concerned that the greatest threat is that in Trump you found no crime, but dang it, you sure can’t say there WAS no goddamn crime and we’ll know it if we ever see it. Impeach or we will lose our democracy forever.

Yellowdog's avatar

With all respect, @SQUEEKY2 (I’ve known you since Askville days, friend) if THIS becomes America, Canada will have all this on the border and invading Canada.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Sure the soy bean farmers are doing great under ole Trump and his Tariffs, same as that large nail factory in the mid west,that had to lay off most it’s work force , because again of said tariffs,
His Bankruptcies aren’t just a made up thing.
Even ole orange hair himself thought he might get impeached gee if you have done no crime then why worry?
Are you drunk? Don’t understand your last answer in the least.
Oh wait there was a big bail out for the farmers, add that to the debt.

Yellowdog's avatar

His bankruptcies are from the days before anyone had even heard of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, before his friends the Clintons ever lived in the White House. And his economic strategies, for unguessable reasons, were lauded by New Yorkers and liberals in the Entertainment industry.

Trump is now involved in world events, and is effecting policies all over. Yet you are talking about what Trump did 25–30 years ago in the entertainment industry and wall street.

And, I hate to repeat it again … and not finding a crime but we can’t prove one DIDN’T happen.

The real problem the Dems are facing, besides the diseases erupting in their own self-created squaller, is the reality that they cannot win in 2020 without impeaching Trump for a real, actual crime. Supposedly obstructing a crime that didn’t happen, or determining that you cannot prove that a crime did NOT happen, won’t cut it.

Yellowdog's avatar

I hope you find that crime. I really fear you’ll go totally insane and ballistic when it doesn’t happen.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You’re mad about bringing up things Trump did in his past???????
Yet you have no problem bringing up things you claim the Democrats did years ago, even going so ar back that when first established the Democratic platform is what the Republicans are today.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What sort of cartoon view of this country are you trying to sell here? Your dystopian description of the way this place works is the height of absurdity. That map of yours with the counties voting red, vote red because everyone with any sense flee such places like the plague. They’re red because they’re as empty as the heads of the poor souls “left behind” to battle the opioid epidemics. The destruction of flyover America proceeds apace directly in conjunction with the annihilation of the middle class as wealth increasingly concentrates in the pockets of economic elites defining and occupying the bluelands through policies enriching such thieves as Trump. I would be tempted to gloat at the fate of you redland dummies who lack the sense to recognize that as conservatives you guarantee your own desolation as you push policies further assuring your relegation to squalor and a subsistence tolerable ONLY due to crumbs redistributed your way from the wealth of of your blueland overseers who have looted your silly asses and will continue to do so until you wake the fuck up! To appear here convinced that a patently lying dishonest pile of shit like Trump to be your salvation is the absolute pinnacle of lunacy, and an irrefutable recipe to your assured doom. I give up.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

We might as well give up @stanleybmanly anything we say falls on deaf ears, to them the orange hair god will save us all.
After of course he grabs all the women by the pussy, and gives himself and his wealthy buddies as many tax breaks as he possibly can, while blaming entitlement programs such as medicare, medicaid, and social security the reason the States debt is out of control.

Yellowdog's avatar

Yeah, give up.

Perhaps, instead of trying to make an ‘Obstruction of Justice” charge as grounds for impeachment, maybe you should give up—and try for ” NOT Obstructing Injustice”. Its the double negative that fits the bill.

Trump did NOT obstruct anything, and should have, because the investigation was unjust.

It was based on a document that is mostly Russian propaganda, and was known to be false before the investigation began.

It has torn the country apart. Maybe you can make a case that Trump SHOULD HAVE ended it, but did nothing. He just let the investigation run its course as America descended into chaos and madness.

That premise is closer to reality, and even fits your ‘can’t prove he did NOT commit a crime’ double-negative a little better.

Yellowdog's avatar

Oh, and that Medicare/Medicaid thing is getting old, too. Democrats cut these programs for Obamacare. Ironically, Republicans have never touched these programs.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You are without a doubt a wonder to experience. It is fascinating yet somehow appropriate that a suitable matching bookend appear to match the absurdity of the slug you So valiantly defend. It’s actually rather perfect.

dabbler's avatar

Democrats certainly toss shit around as well as Repulicans. But the neo-fascist agenda has something that the other side does not, Rupert Murdoch and Fox ‘news’ outlets.
No, MSNBC is not just like that on the other side. There is nothing on the other side that spreads misleading ‘information’, hatred, division, racism… like Fox News and other Murdoch outlets.

ragingloli's avatar

It really is funny.
The report showed over 100 contacts between Drumpf and the Russians, showed that the campaign had no problems accepting their help, showed that the Russians systematically interfered with the election, and it showed that Drumpf attempted to obstruct the investigation.

But, of course, it is Drumpf that is somehow the poor victim of a “witch hunt”.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The fool will never escape the vice closing on him.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

The world can only hope @stanleybmanly but very wealthy people seem to be able to slip the noose more than wear it.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Yellowdog Yikes, lots of name-calling by the libs here, lol.

Fact is, they’re giving 2020 to Trump and don’t see it. Even people who dislike Trump are getting more and more loyal again as the Libs continue their diatribes.

Maybe the farmers are suffering here in ‘flyover country’ due to weather and some tariffs, but the rest of us are just fine. And many of those ‘suffering’ are still voting Trump…lol

Yellowdog's avatar

I have seen enough educated, reliable sources and models that predict that the ONLY way Dems can win in 2020, because of all the hype they’ve created instead of legislating, is to IMPEACH Trump on an ACTUAL crime, as in, High Crimes and Misdemeanors. that cannot be denied by the Senate and/or Supreme Court.

Crazy assed overbiased zealots in congress with an angry, insane agenda are not perceived as arbitrators of truth or wrongdoing.

Indeed, the fools will never escape the vice closing in on them.

They HAVE to impeach in order to win, and it HAS to stick. If it backfires, its the end for them.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@KNOWITALL Trump’s approval rating by Gallup is about 42%, 52% disapprove and 6% no answer.

So maybe you should contact Gallup and tell them about your revelation !!!!

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Yellowdog Best video evaaaaaa! I love to watch poor George’s face as he realizes all the numbers were lies, the polls were lies, the ‘elite’ were wrong….haha!

https://youtu.be/tJdQzQ9cI9A

@Tropical_Willie Do you know what a silent majority is?

stanleybmanly's avatar

I know! It’s a euphemism for feeble minded. Were I a fan of the fool, I sure as hell wouldn’t tell anyone.

Yellowdog's avatar

There is also a lot brewing involving the ORIGINS of the Trump/Russia hoax.\

What will be revealed is really already known. But no one has been prosecuted. When Grand Juries are assembled, when the Horowitz report comes out, when panels are assembled and people start going on trial, Americans will start perceiving truthfully what has been going on,

Yellowdog's avatar

Wellll…. in any case, the best chance they had as Michael Avenatti.

I don’t see him the running.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@stanleybmanly I’m not even a fan of his but we’ll see how it shakes out. If it comes down to him or Biden, you’re giving it to Trump- again.

Demosthenes's avatar

@KNOWITALL Agreed. Every election will be reduced to a “lesser of two evils” choice. Is that really the best we can do as a nation?

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Demosthenes Sad isn’t it? Biden is leading the Dem candidates and he’s got a disgusting record. I don’t get it.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

And yet Trump is the better smelling candidate?
Wow,just wow.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Have you researched Biden’s record?

Stache's avatar

As we have learned from the past, polls don’t mean shit. It’s still very early in the game.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Elizabeth Warren is looking pretty good too. But it’s impossible to tell.

@KNOWITALL Biden did some stuff that lots of people don’t agree with, but it was political stuff. He didn’t do anything immoral or disgusting. He didn’t grab women by the pussy. He didn’t have an affair with a porn star soon after Wife #3 had a baby, then paid her off to keep the whole affair quiet. He didn’t brag about his penis size in public. He hasn’t ridiculed women, handicapped person or Mexicans.

Yes. Biden is the “better smelling” candidate. At this point, virtually any other republican would also be a huge improvement over trump.

I will just be glad when he’s out of office,even if we do end up with a republican president.

Stache's avatar

About this time in the game in 2015 I believe Jeb Bush was leading the pack. We all know how that turned out.

KNOWITALL's avatar

@Dutchess_III The personal stuff of a Clinton or Trump isn’t near as big a problem to me, as enacting policy that affects the entire American population. Democrats do love their Irish Catholics though…lol

According to political analyst Mark Halperin, he has shown “a persistent tendency to say silly, offensive, and off-putting things”;[161] The New York Times writes that Biden’s “weak filters make him capable of blurting out pretty much anything”.[159] Journalist James Traub has written that “Biden’s vanity and his regard for his own gifts seem considerable even by the rarefied standards of the U.S. Senate.”[134]

On the day of his January 2007 announcement, he spoke of fellow Democratic candidate and Senator Barack Obama: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy, I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”[174][nb 3] This comment undermined his campaign as soon as it began and significantly damaged his fund-raising capabilities;

There are also the women who have come forward to say Biden touched them inappropriately. He has said he did not believe his actions were inappropriate, and that it was never his intention to make anyone uncomfortable. Hill told the Times she is also troubled by this aspect of Biden’s history.
https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/4/24/joe-biden-lgbtq-rights-questionable-ally-reliable-one

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, I wouldn’t worry about it. I don’t think he’s going to win, and that is probably one of the reasons why. It it’s a real problem, we liberals take a long hard look at it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I don’t think Biden should be the worry for Trump fans. Instead of dogging Biden right now I would be MUCH more worried about the blooper reels being compiled of “Trump’s Greatest Hits”. Can you imagine the fun coming up with reviews of his “achievements”?

Yellowdog's avatar

Yes, they are quite impressive. And a lot of that has translated well into running the country.

stanleybmanly's avatar

They will be impressive alright, although the Democrats are swamped with footage of Trumpdoms. By now the archived footage of the dummy acting the fool could probably swamp a substantial percentage of the space in his tacky tower.

Yellowdog's avatar

The only Democrat who ever had a ghost of a chance at beating Trump was Michael Avenatti.

stanleybmanly's avatar

You know of course that the fake news footage of the fool must surpass any stockpile of negative ammunition in the political history of this country?

Yellowdog's avatar

It hasn’t worked too well, has it?

stanleybmanly's avatar

So far? Is the campaign underway?

Yellowdog's avatar

Well, its always a dramatic major constitutional crises every day in America. All the pundits, one day Trump is mentally ill and needs to be taken out. Another day he’s Hitler or Stalin or Benito Mussolini. Every day, Trump made the MOST SERIOUS mistake of his presidency and we are well on the road to IMPEACHMENT. It’s been headlines since mid November 2016. Meanwhile, the nation is prospering while the Left is going batshit crazy.

So, what would you propose would be different about your new anti-Trump campaign?
And do you SERIOUSLY think any of the 22 nutjobs in the Dem Pool could handle the office or world events? You need another Michael Avenotti to carry the party.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What is it with you and this worship of confirmed criminals?

Stache's avatar

“The only Democrat who ever had a ghost of a chance at beating Trump was Michael Avenatti.”

I just spit my drink on my desktop. That’s hilarious.

stanleybmanly's avatar

He’s in great form lately

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog “The only Democrat who ever had a ghost of a chance at beating Trump was Michael Avenatti.”

I don’t say this lightly, but I’m honestly starting to believe you have difficulty separating fantasy from reality.

ragingloli's avatar

Known for domestic violence, extortion, fraud, embezzlement, tax evasion.
There is a difference between “a chance at beating Trump” and “He is so much like Trump, I would consider voting for him.”, little pup.

Yellowdog's avatar

You guys idolized him for over eight months. He was on EVERY network, EVERY t.v. talk show, and in spite of knowledge that he was a slip-and-fall sleazy lawyer for sleazy people making salacious accusations for blackmail, you adored him because he was so anti-Trump, and there was a massive push to get him to run for office

. And, like most criminals actually are, he had his commupance. But no, you haven’t found a crime on Trump. The incessant search for an imaginary crime is an ACTUAL indicator of a REAL inability to separate fantasy from reality.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog THE DOJ CANNOT INDICT A SEATING PRESIDENT !

That is up to the House, now that Mueller doesn’t work for Barr there maybe . . . more questions from the House.

What have you missed ????

Dutchess_III's avatar

I never heard of Michael Avenatti.

And listen to @Tropical_Willie!

ragingloli's avatar

I am quite confident that no one here has ever “idolised” that guy.
As usual, you are projecting.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Yellowdog “You guys idolized him for over eight months.”

No, we did not.

Yellowdog's avatar

There is no law that says the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president, or recommend indictment. Mueller was lying. Mueller also said in front of witnesses including Rod Rosenstien that the DOJ guidelines had no influence in his decision to not indict or come to a conclusion.

There are DOJ Guidelines that say you can’t, but there are no laws, And certainly not the constitution like Mueller said.

Mueller came to no conclusions, which was strange, and left that to Barr and Rosenstein.

Yellowdog's avatar

If Mueller can’t indict, neither could the house

Darth_Algar's avatar

There may be no law, per se, but it’s long standing precedent and Mueller knows that. And he knows full and well that Barr certainly would not indict this president. Thus, Mueller leaves it to the Congress to exercise their Constitutional duty. Probably a go-nowhere move, but Mueller is nothing if not by-the-book.

Yellowdog's avatar

It’s certainly not as easy as having someone you hate, that you make up a crime or say there might be an unknown crime, and convict them of it. But some in congress are used to having that kind of power. It must be frustrating.

Darth_Algar's avatar

“Lock her up! Lock her up!” – Sound familiar?

Yellowdog's avatar

Real crimes.

No investigation. Just an exoneration written two months before the FBI 302 interview by personal friends and political allies. No going under oath,
A free pass.

A lot of people are frustrated at our two-tier justice system. That’s why you hear all the “lock her up” noise,

Darth_Algar's avatar

What “real crimes”?

Yellowdog's avatar

Comey gave the short list on July 5, 2016.

A lot of emails and evidence and devices containing the activities were destroyed when subpoenaed. That might count as obstruction. Except in this case of obstruction, well, evidence was really destroyed or attempted to have been destroyed.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Good God. That has been tried over and over and it is NOTHING. Jesus. Give it up. I can see you and your cronies still trying to prove her guilt 50 years from now when you’re in an old folks home.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog “A lot of emails and evidence and devices containing the activities were destroyed when subpoenaed. That might count as obstruction. Except in this case of obstruction, well, evidence was really destroyed or attempted to have been destroyed.”

In your mind and the Russian trolls on Facebook and Twitter ! Ha-HA-HA

Yellowdog's avatar

Hillary was never under oath, never investigated. Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch said it was a ‘matter’ and not an ‘investigation.” An FBI 302 interview among close personal friends and political allies you’ve worked with since 2009—is not exactly an investigation.

This was the beginning of the investigations we are now involved with.

stanleybmanly's avatar

We’ll see just who is legally upbraided first. Wanna start a pool? It’s too bad we didn’t start the betting before the 39 indictments.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@stanleybmanly Those 39 indictments are all “Fake News” !

Just like Manafort going to jail and Cohen that never happened !

~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ Don’t you know anything ? * * * ; >)

Darth_Algar's avatar

@stanleybmanly

Those 39 indictments aren’t real. That never happened. And Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

Yellowdog's avatar

@stanleybmanly I already won $200.00 on a bet that there would be no collusion in the Mueller report. Of course, this was known before the investigation began. People are just dumb. I wish I had bet more, but I never could be sure they wouldn’t make some crap up, like Mueller tried to convince us of after the investigation was over.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Just wait and pay attention. We will see just who the dumb people are.

ragingloli's avatar

There was no criminal conspiracy.
But what was found in the report, can easily be called collusion.
And either way, his obstruction was criminal.

Yellowdog's avatar

What about FISA abuse?

Jim Comey was peddling a document he knew was false. He attempted to blackmail the president with it. But the main thing, he used it in signing off a FISA warrant and three renewals.

Don’t you think that is, um, pretty serious? How many felonies can you count in just that one act?

And you’re riding on, “well, the president MEANT to obstruct,: “He surely engaged in obstruction-like behavior.” “I am not saying there was evidence of any crime, but I sure cain’t say gosh dangit there MIGHT have been a crime we don’t know about!”

I’d bet a signature on a fraudulent FISA document over that any day.

Darth_Algar's avatar

There have been 39 indictments, convictions or guilty pleas stemming from Mueller’s investigation. Some of those from people close to Trump. Some of them on charges directly related to “this Russia thing”.

But yeah: no crime, no collusion.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

I was wondering about that as well^^^^^ guess the claim will be FAKE news!

Yellowdog's avatar

Well, that’s what Mueller’s report said, at least.
No Collusion. Not enough evidence to meet obstruction.

Rosentstein and Barr concur.

Why is anyone trying to say there’s more? Just to keep it in the limelight?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

OK then why don’t you address why there has been 39indictments stemming from Mueller’s investigation?
Trump has been known for having business dealings with Russians, his kid met with one trying to get dirt on evil Hilary, been rumoured Trump was even at that meeting(I know FAKE NEWS).
The televised Russian meeting with him and his buddy Putin ,was embarrassing to watch,and then to meet with Putin totally alone(there was red flags) his advisers didn’t want it that way but ole orange hair insisted,should have been another person from your country there ,but you see no wrong again.
You faith and trust in this idiot is amazing, he has fired or had more people resign from his inner circle than any President I can remember, has had extramarital affaires even with Porn stars, and yet his Orange halo still shines bright for you.
His stupid tariffs are hurting companies and working class citizens in YOUR country but again you still refuse to see or believe that as well.
WE are never going to change your mind on him, to you he is the greatest president your country had ever had.
For the rest of us he is a crooked business man who wants to be a dictator, and it will take decades for your country to recover from this orange hair crazy loon.

dabbler's avatar

@Yellowdog “No Collusion. Not enough evidence to meet obstruction” That is not quite the story of the Mueller report.

The summary states clearly that because there is no legal definition for collusion the commission did not look for that, instead for conspiracy. And while they found no specific evidence of the Trump campaign conspiring with the Russian government, plenty of evidence was found on three fronts of Russian operatives attempting to interfere with the election.

As far as obstruction, there are at least eleven indictable cases of obstruction detailed in the report. Because of the Justice Department ruling that a regular prosecutor, including Mueller, cannot indict a sitting president, the commission leaves that up to Congress as provided in the Constitution. The summary has four separate statements to the effect that IF they could say the president did NOT obstruct the investigation they would say so, but they cannot.

“Why is anyone trying to say there’s more?” Only because there is quite obviously
a LOT more.

Yellowdog's avatar

I remember Obama and Hillary downplaying and ridiculing the notion of Russian interference right up to a day-and-a-half before election night.

Obama saying it was impossible to rig an election because there were so many voting districts, and saying Devin Nunes was still living in the days of the Cold War;. You could win the popular vote with foreign interference, but even if you did that, the electoral college vote would correct this because of the sheer number of districts.
Hillary was saying ‘how dare he ’ (Trump) question the integrity of our elections.

It was set up, all right, by Russians. But on whose watch?

The Russia Collusion narrative does NOT help those who were actually responsible for protecting us on Obama / Hillary’s watch during the 2016 campaign.

It is all being looked into, by the DOJ. You don’t have to try to tell me anything or read what I am saying.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Don’t suppose you have any proof of ” Obama and Hillary downplaying and ridiculing the notion of Russian interference right up to a day-and-a-half before election night.”?........... Thought not.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog “Make believe” News

Oh it was Hillary’s fault that . . . . ! Ha-Ha

@Yellowdog where is your reading comprehension ! ! !

Oh Trump tells you what to do . . . what to think . . . who to hate !! ! !

dabbler's avatar

“The Russia Collusion narrative does NOT help those who were actually responsible for protecting us on Obama / Hillary’s watch during the 2016 campaign”
So what? That’s a different topic, the Mueller Report is on deck in this question.

It should alarm any alert US citizen, including Mr Trump, that there were active efforts to affect our election. Solutions to mitigate those efforts should be getting developed. Mr Trump is telling us he had nothing to do with Russia helping him get elected, instead of working assuring Russia does not have that kind of effect for any candidate in future elections.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@dabbler Ya have to know when it comes to Trump and his loyal puppies when anything makes them uncomfortable or gets close to the truth it’s either lie,lie,lie,or deflect,deflect,deflect, and if those fail you scream fake news,fake news,fake news at the top of every building.

RedDeerGuy1's avatar

I am so glad that my CNN and Fox news channels where accidentally deleted by my isp.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@dabbler “It should alarm any alert US citizen, including Mr Trump, that there were active efforts to affect our election. Solutions to mitigate those efforts should be getting developed.”

Yep. And Cocaine Mitch has flat out stated that the Senate will do nothing.

Yellowdog's avatar

Clapper, Comey, Brennan, McCabe—all STARTED what has culminated in the Mueller report, to sway the election for Hillary—the dossier which Hillary paid for was the main source of evidence used in the Mueller report. Even the NYT is calling this Russian propaganda. How can you say these are separate topics?

The Horowitz report will be out in several days. The Republicans were warning of Russian interference since 2014. The Democrats never cared about this until they lost the 2016 election and needed something to blame it on.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

@Yellowdog Source PLEASE ! and DON’t quote the orange abomination.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

You have to know by now he never puts links up, we have to take him at his word.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Oh ya . . . BS WORD !

Dutchess_III's avatar

And Jesus rode a unicorn. That is well documented.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther