A Theory of Trump Kompromat

[Revoltingest]

You obviously voted for him.

Did you figure that out based upon my saying I voted for Trump?

You generally support(ed) him.

If I generally support Trump, then your opposition to him
has the effect of favoring the alternative, ie, Hillary Clinton.
By your own rationale, you "generally support" her war
lust, corruption, incompetence, & threat to "obliterate Iran".

See the problem with specious labeling?
If you just stick to issues, then you won't
have to endure my labeling you.

I can't believe you would feel any shame in that, considering you support his joke about attacking the U.S. government. Says a lot about Trump voters.

Politicians make jokes all the time, which if taken literally, would be offensive.
Consider Obama's joke...thanking Biden for not shooting anyone in the face
(back in 2016). Was he joking, or was he saying that Biden is prone to
shooting people in the face? That would be a serious accusation.
Of course, there was no outcry at the time because non-Democrats have
a sense of humor, & Democrats see no sins in their own.

 

[sun rise]

Some love to take jokes seriously, making them impeachmentworthy.
But desire to believe does not make this delusion factual.
Conspiracies to collude just aren't started on national TV.

That's a fancy verbal yoga position akin to this image.

 

[sun rise]

Democrats see no sins in their own.

If this were a joke thread, I'd give you a laugh for that one given how utterly wrong it is. Instead I'll quote Will Rogers "I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."

 

[Faithofchristian]

After reading this, I've changed my mind about Trump and Putin. I don't know if it's 100% accurate or not but it certainly does explain quite a bit.

A Theory of Trump Kompromat
Why the President is so nice to Putin, even when Putin might not want him to be.
https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk/swamp-chronicles/a-theory-of-trump-kompromat

There is no need to assume that Trump was a formal agent of Russian intelligence to make sense of Trump’s solicitousness toward Putin. Keith Darden, an international-relations professor at American University, has studied the Russian use of kompromat—compromising material—and told me that he thinks it is likely that the President believes the Russians have something on him.
...
Ledeneva argued that wealth and power are distributed through networks of political figures and businesspeople who follow unspoken rules, in an informal hierarchy that she calls the sistema, or system in English. Sistema has a few clear rules—do not defy Putin being the most obvious one—and a toolkit for controlling potentially errant members. It is primarily a system of ambiguity.
...
The scenario that, to my mind, makes the most sense of the given facts and requires the fewest fantastical leaps is that, a decade or so ago, Trump, naïve, covetous, and struggling for cash, may have laundered money for a business partner from the former Soviet Union or engaged in some other financial crime.
...
Trump and many of his defenders have declared his businesses, including those in the former Soviet Union, to be off-limits to the Mueller investigation.

“In the entire history of our country, Americans have never seen a president of the United States support an adversary the way President [Donald] Trump has supported President [Vladimir] Putin.”

Those were the words of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) after last week’s summit between the two presidents in Helsinki, but there may be some holes in Schumer’s allegations — doughnut holes, that is. While Schumer had the audacity to accuse Trump of “support[ing] an adversary” in Putin, the Senate Minority Leader himself buddied up with the Russian president in 2003; they were even photographed sharing Krispy Kreme doughnuts inside a newly opened Russian gas station in Manhattan New York.



Coffee and doughnuts
During his first term in the Senate, Schumer welcomed Putin to his home state to inaugurate the first of a series of Russian-owned gas stations in the U.S. after Russian energy giant Lukoil bought out the American-owned Getty Petroleum Marketing Inc. in 2000. Schumer celebrated the acquisition of more than 1,300 American stores with Putin over coffee and donuts inside the Soviet-red Lukoil-owned gas station on 10th Avenue and 24th Street in Chelsea.

https://twitter.com/stankm/status/1019571987818188801/photo/1

What's up with all that Go Figure

 

[Revoltingest]

That's a fancy verbal yoga position akin to this image.

View attachment 23168

So you really believe....actually believe....you're not feigning belief....that
Donald Trump decided to solicit illegal collusion by announcing this intention
on national TV? You're serious? Not joking, but you actually believe this?

Lordy, lordy...the things people can believe when desire overwhelms.

 

[Revoltingest]

If this were a joke thread, I'd give you a laugh for that one given how utterly wrong it is. Instead I'll quote Will Rogers "I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."

Democrats are experts at seeing the worst in others,
while excusing their own. Better at this than even
Republicans.

 

[Sleeppy]

Did you figure that out based upon my saying I voted for Trump?

If I generally support Trump, then your opposition to him
has the effect of favoring the alternative, ie, Hillary Clinton.
By your own rationale, you "generally support" her war
lust, corruption, incompetence, & threat to "obliterate Iran".

See the problem with specious labeling?
If you just stick to issues, then you won't
have to endure my labeling you.

Politicians make jokes all the time, which if taken literally, would be offensive.
Consider Obama's joke...thanking Biden for not shooting anyone in the face
(back in 2016). Was he joking, or was he saying that Biden is prone to
shooting people in the face? That would be a serious accusation.
Of course, there was no outcry at the time because non-Democrats have
a sense of humor, & Democrats see no sins in their own.

1) Except I never even implied support for Clinton.

2) Dick Cheney shot someone in the face. It's also not analogous, in that he's jokingly thanking Biden that it did not happen. It would be analogous if he jokingly asked Biden, or offered thanks that Biden did shoot someone in the face.

3) I'm not prone to using comparisons to make excuses.

 

[fantome profane]

Democrats are ..,.

Nah, we already did this one.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nah, we already did this one.

One must recognize that by context, a generality does not include every individual.
It's a preponderant trait. And I posted that fully aware of some exceptions I know.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) Except I never even implied support for Clinton.

In a race where one of the alternatives will win,
to vigorously oppose one winning has the clear
effect of supporting the other.

2) Dick Cheney shot someone in the face. It's also not analogous, in that he's jokingly thanking Biden that it did not happen. It would be analogous if he jokingly asked Biden, or offered thanks that Biden did shoot someone in the face.

I thought it was a reference to Biden's advice to shoot someone thru the door.
Ref....
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door
Nonetheless, you see a joke where politically useful to see it that way,
It's a double standard.

3) I'm not prone to using comparisons to make excuses.

You fail to understand that I'm not making an excuse for Trumps joke.
I'm simply trying to get you to understand what it was (with no success).

 

[Sleeppy]

In a race where one of the alternatives will win,
to vigorously oppose one winning has the clear
effect of supporting the other.

I thought it was a reference to Biden's advice to shoot someone thru the door.
Ref....
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door
Nonetheless, you see a joke where politically useful to see it that way,
It's a double standard.

You fail to understand that I'm not making an excuse for Trumps joke.
I'm simply trying to get you to understand what it was (with no success).

1) Not really. I would know.

2) It's not a double standard at all. Obama wasn't jokingly excusing shooting someone in the face; Trump (you say jokingly) enticed a foreign adversary to hack the U.S. Democratic process. Very different.

3) You said otherwise; a "hilarious way to mock Democratic security." Pretty gross.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) Not really. I would know.

2) It's not a double standard at all. Obama wasn't jokingly excusing shooting someone in the face; Trump (you say jokingly) enticed a foreign adversary to hack the U.S. Democratic process. Very different.

3) You said otherwise; a "hilarious way to mock Democratic security." Pretty gross.

I must have a more sophisticated sense of humor.
It's the only explanation.

 

[Estro Felino]

If this were a joke thread, I'd give you a laugh for that one given how utterly wrong it is. Instead I'll quote Will Rogers "I'm not a member of any organized political party.... I'm a Democrat."

Putin, interviewed:

"Do u really thing that Prigozhin, a St Petersburg chef with hacking opportunities, could use them to sway elections in the US or in Europe? That's ridiculous.

There is an American billionaire, George Soros, who doesn't mind interfering in EU and US politics ...but when we Russians ask Americans why he does that, they answer "it's private". Well, if you keep asking me about Prigozhin, I'll answer "it's private" too."