Trump, Oligarchs, And The Rehabilitation Of War Criminals

[Frank Underwood]

As much as I hate Donald Trump, I've often wondered why he was singled out. To hear some people talk, political corruption began on January 20, 2017. Others think you have to go back to Nixon to find a president this bad, even though Bush lied us into Iraq. Trump was involved in money laundering for Russian oligarchs, yet a certain president from the 90s and his wife were also involved in shady financial dealings with Russian oligarchs. Political corruption is nothing new, but I don't understand why we pick and choose who to go after.

I'd argue that being conned into the illegal Iraq war was an even bigger crime, and the Bush Administration got off scott free. And it was none other than Robert Mueller who helped propagate that lie. Ironic, since he's now become the darling of the left. While working for the CIA under Bush, John Brennan supported torture (he used the weasel words "enhanced interrogation"). Today, John Brennan attacked Trump's corruption and said he will end up "in the dustbin of history." Funny, since Brennan himself belongs there as well.

I just find it odd that war criminals have been able to rehabilitate their images simply by attacking Trump. Keith Olbermann used to be an outspoken critic of Republicans and Bush in particular. Today, he says he owes Bush an apology and that John McCain is his favorite politician of the 21st century. Trump is making people lose their minds.

Trump's money laundering schemes and attempts to obstruct justice are certainly criminal, but The US has let other politicians get by with as much or worse.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Well, of course. So are you itching to see Trump get off scot free, too? Because you may very well get your wish.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

As much as I hate Donald Trump, I've often wondered why he was singled out. To hear some people talk, political corruption began on January 20, 2017.

I do hate Trump, but, but, but... Always a 'but' with you, isn't there? Not the most effective way to fry a fish. A little sense of priority would help. He is the current occupant of the White House. And he has expressed utter contempt for the rule of law the likes of which the US has never seen before. As much as you love to put equation mark between him and the Clintons, Trump is the greatest malignancy and all decent Americans should unite to remove it.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Well, of course. So are you itching to see Trump get off scot free, too? Because you may very well get your wish.

Of course I don't want him to get off. My point is that Trump's a symptom of systemic rot, yet people act as if no other politician has been this deserving of contempt before.

It's gotten so insane that war criminals are treated like heroes now simply because they hate Trump too.

I do hate Trump, but, but, but... Always a 'but' with you, isn't there? Not the most effective way to fry a fish. A little sense of priority would help. He is the current occupant of the White House. And he has expressed utter contempt for the rule of law the likes of which the US has never seen before. As much as you love to put equation mark between him and the Clintons, Trump is the greatest malignancy and all decent Americans should unite to remove it.

Those "buts" you don't like are to show that Trump isn't the only politician worthy of contempt, investigation, and possible criminal charges.

As for the Clintons, if Trump had been part of a deal to sell uranium to Russia and his foundation just happened to receive millions from investors in that deal, while Melania "coincidentally" received $500,000 from a Kremlin bank, it wouldn't be treated as inconsequential. Trump may be the priority now because he's the current occupant of the White House, but it goes back to my original point that letting a system of corruption flourish has led to our current situation. Politicians have gotten away with corruption for far too long.

IMO, the lie used by the Bush Administration to get us into Iraq was worse, and it also showed a huge contempt of the law. Mueller propagated that lie, and now he and Bush, along with pro-torturers like John Brennan are looked at favorably because they've also gone after Trump. You don't become a good guy by going after another bad guy.

Since Trump was elected, my goal here has been to show why the system needs to be reformed and why ALL politicians need to be held accountable.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Since Trump was elected, my goal here has been to show why the system needs to reformed and why ALL politicians need to be held accountable.

Frankly, you seem to be far less interested in anything Trump did or is, even though he's the one who's president.

You're really only interested in what Hillary and the DNC did to Bernie Sanders, as evidence by all the threads you've instantly attempt to re-route into that (this thread, I realize, started out about that stuff, and the unpunished corruption of others).

There's nothing wrong with your bringing up these topics -- I have myself. But you're far more fascinated by the dirty politics of the Clintons, the DNC, the Bushes and whomever than the guy in the Oval Office right now.

I think you're glad he's there, Donald Trump, as a big ol' bird finger to the lefties who didn't know, didn't care, or didn't care enough about the ugly party machinations among the Democrats. You basically admitted that before the election, that it would serve them right if Trump was 'elected'.

So your claims about presenting balance aren't entirely convincing -- and, as you know, I've never been 100% defensive for Hillary. But your endless introductions about uranium deals, and your versions of that which mimic rightwing talking points, is a bit OTT.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Frankly, you seem to be far less interested in anything Trump did or is, even though he's the one who's president.

You're really only interested in what Hillary and the DNC did to Bernie Sanders, as evidence by all the threads you've instantly attempt to re-route into that (this thread, I realize, started out about that stuff, and the unpunished corruption of others).

There's nothing wrong with your bringing up these topics -- I have myself. But you're far more fascinated by the dirty politics of the Clintons, the DNC, the Bushes and whomever than the guy in the Oval Office right now.

My fascination with the sins of politicians from the past is because I like consistency. The fact that Trump was deemed worthy of an investigation but other corrupt politicians slipped through the cracks is puzzling to me. It doesn't mean I think Trump isn't worthy of being brought up on charges, but he's still only one example of systemic political corruption.

I actually haven't re-routed many threads lately. However, the person who is liking your posts and Gabriel's here did re-route my thread about Trump's budget into a thread about Hillary. You saw how that escalated when I took issue with his point. I mostly post articles these days, which are usually about Trump himself or the Democrats who capitulate to him.

I think you're glad he's there, Donald Trump, as a big ol' bird finger to the lefties who didn't know, didn't care, or didn't care enough about the ugly party machinations among the Democrats. You basically admitted that before the election, that it would serve them right if Trump was 'elected'.

It was a bit of sour grapes on my part when I said that, but I had also hoped it would force Democrats to wake up and change course.

Boy, was I wrong. The Trump Presidency has exposed Democrats who talk trash about Trump, but have ultimately handed him much of what he asked for.

So your claims about presenting balance aren't entirely convincing -- and, as you know, I've never been 100% defensive for Hillary. But your endless introductions about uranium deals, and your versions of that which mimic rightwing talking points, is a bit OTT.

So it's a lefty point to expose the Trump Administration's financial dealings with Russian oligarchs, but it's a right wing point to expose the Clintons? Many on the left have co-opted right wing talking points of their own. I've seen lefty media figures denounce diplomacy, and the Dems helped increase the military budget. But I'm sure they're resisting Trump better than me.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

My fascination with the sins of politicians from the past is because I like consistency. The fact that Trump was deemed worthy of an investigation but other corrupt politicians slipped through the cracks is puzzling to me. It doesn't mean I think Trump isn't worthy of being brought up on charges, but he's still only one example of systemic political corruption.

I actually haven't re-routed many threads lately. However, the person who is liking your posts and Gabriel's here did re-route my thread about Trump's budget into a thread about Hillary. You saw how that escalated when I took issue with his point. I mostly post articles these days, which are usually about Trump himself or the Democrats who capitulate to him.


It was a bit of sour grapes on my part when I said that, but I had also hoped it would force Democrats to wake up and change course.

Boy, was I wrong. The Trump Presidency has exposed Democrats who talk trash about Trump, but have ultimately handed him much of what he asked for.


So it's a lefty point to expose the Trump Administration's financial dealings with Russian oligarchs, but it's a right wing point to expose the Clintons? Many on the left have co-opted right wing talking points of their own. I've seen lefty media figures denounce diplomacy, and the Dems helped increase the military budget. But I'm sure they're resisting Trump better than me.

I don't know if you realize how obvious it is that the only corruption you're really not interested in is that of the guy in the White House right now.

Even your first line in this thread was "As much as I hate Donald Trump (but)..."

 

[Frank Underwood]

I don't know if you realize how obvious it is that the only corruption you're really not interested in is that of the guy in the White House right now.

Even your first line in this thread was "As much as I hate Donald Trump (but)..."

You really believe that, or are you just looking for another like from SER!?

I wasn't aware that the word "but" meant Trump's corruption is irrelevant. Silly me, I thought I was using it to show other examples of corruption that we let slide.

It's fashionable here to misconstrue everything I say into me not caring about Trump. I've tried to fight it, but I see what a spectacular waste of time that is. It's also clear that none of you are interested in reforming the actual system. You all want to see Trump hang, which is valid, but you're perfectly fine with the system letting other political criminals go free.

The excuse that "they're not in the White House" doesn't hold water. I stand against all corruption, past, present, and future. I was also the first to post articles about members of the Trump Administration being indicted for financial crimes and perjury. Kind of odd for someone who supposedly doesn't care about that stuff.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

You really believe that, or are you just looking for another like from SER!?

I wasn't aware that the word "but" meant Trump's corruption is irrelevant. Silly me, I thought I was using it to show other examples of corruption that we let slide.

It's fashionable here to misconstrue everything I say into me not caring about Trump. I've tried to fight it, but I see what a spectacular waste of time that is. It's also clear that none of you are interested in reforming the actual system. You all want to see Trump hang, which is valid, but you're perfectly fine with the system letting other political criminals go free.

Yes, I'm just like SER. Everybody says so. And you're taking this waaaay too personally, but then that fits in with the blinders-on-yet-you-don't-know-it passion you seem to have about everyone except Trump. It's emotionalism.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Yes, I'm just like SER. Everybody says so. And you're taking this waaaay too personally, but then that fits in with the blinders-on-yet-you-don't-know-it passion you seem to have about everyone except Trump. It's emotionalism.

I meant that your post seemed like you were fishing for a like from SER, not that you were like him personally.

Trump's a guy I've condemned, didn't vote for, wouldn't vote for, and would love to see rot in prison. But I don't care about him.

And I'm taking things personal and resorting to "emotionalism" because I'm being gaslighted by someone I once respected and admired. It's beyond having a political disagreement at this point because my motives and integrity are being called into question. Maybe you can remain stone faced when people do that to you, but I can't.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I meant that your post seemed like you were fishing for a like from SER, not that you were like him personally.

Trump's a guy I've condemned, didn't vote for, wouldn't vote for, and would love to see rot in prison. But I don't care about him.

And I'm taking things personal and resorting to "emotionalism" because I'm being gaslighted by someone I once respected and admired. It's beyond having a political disagreement at this point because my motives and integrity are being called into question. Maybe you can remain stone faced when people do that to you, but I can't.

So you think I'm fishing for "likes" from SER? Really?? Me? From SER?

And just who is gaslighting you whom you once respected and admired??

No one's calling your "motives and integrity" into question, just your objectivity, or your ability to see the orange tree in front of you for your fixation on the forest which looks like a sea of Hillarys.

 

[Frank Underwood]

So you think I'm fishing for "likes" from SER? Really?? Me? From SER?

I was being semi-facetious because anybody who criticizes my posts are guaranteed a like from him. I did think you knew me better than that, though.

And just who is gaslighting you whom you once respected and admired??

No one's calling your "motives and integrity" into question, just your objectivity, or your ability to see the orange tree in front of you for your fixation on the forest which looks like a sea of Hillarys.

Who's gaslighting me? Who keeps telling me that I don't care about Trump's corruption even when I explain that I do? And how am I not being objective when my point is that we shouldn't pick and choose which corrupt politicians to go after? I didn't just call out Hillary. I've also called out Bush, Mueller, Brennan, and the torturers Trump nominated.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I thought that might be why you were saying I don't care about Trump. Anybody who criticizes my posts are guaranteed a like from him.

And asserts someone you respected and admired has somehow done you wrong??

You're reacting emotionalistically to my accusations of your reacting emotionalistically.

Chill for godsake.

Who's gaslighting me? Who keeps telling me that I don't care about Trump's corruption even when I explain that I do? And how am I not being objective when my point is that we shouldn't pick and choose which corrupt politicians to go after? I didn't just call out Hillary. I also called out Bush, Mueller, Brennan, and the torturers Trump nominated.

And it's still painfully clear the only one you're interested in is Hillary. Or anybody who goes after Trump, because of their hypocrisy.

 

[Frank Underwood]

And asserts someone you respected and admired has somehow done you wrong??

You're reacting emotionalistically to my accusations of your reacting emotionalistically.

Chill for godsake.


And it's still painfully clear the only one you're interested in is Hillary. Or anybody who goes after Trump, because of their hypocrisy.

I'll take your advice and chill. My problem is I care what other people think more than I like to admit. As long as I know where I really stand, it doesn't matter what others believe.

I haven't felt like this was the place for someone with my views for quite some time. They say insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. That's what posting here has become for me. When it comes to corruption before Trump, everybody here is like:

Trump has become the be all end all when it comes to corruption, and I'm somehow not objective for realizing that. Just remember that the left which has cozied up to Bush and Mueller hated them back in the day. Give it time, and they will rehabilitate Trump's image when the next fascist demagogue comes along.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

Trump's a guy I've condemned, didn't vote for, wouldn't vote for, and would love to see rot in prison. But I don't care about him.

But you should care about Trump and his character completely unfit for presidency, because he is currently in a position to cause irreparable damage to the United States.

Who keeps telling me that I don't care about Trump's corruption even when I explain that I do?

I'm sure you'd like to see him pay for his financial crimes. But I also think you're secretly hoping all this conspiracy business with a foreign adversary, a.k.a. treason, is not true, as that would diminish your efforts to paint the DNC as the principal villain and the sole culprit in the election of Trump.

Your thread about the probe "jumping the shark" where you mocked allegations concerning the abuse of Facebook and other social media by the Russian bots comes to mind (thankfully the Mercers' Cambridge Analytica is finally in the news).

 

[Frank Underwood]

But you should care about Trump and his character completely unfit for presidency, because he is currently in a position to cause irreparable damage to the United States.

I was being sarcastic when I said I don't care about him because that's what Snarky accused me of. Of course I care about the damage he's inflicting.

I'm sure you'd like to see him pay for his financial crimes. But I also think you're secretly hoping all this conspiracy business with a foreign adversary, a.k.a. treason, is not true, as that would diminish your efforts to paint the DNC as the principal villain and the sole culprit in the election of Trump.

How would treason charges against Trump diminish my criticisms of the DNC? No matter what happens to Trump, the DNC was still caught rigging the primaries, admitted in court that they aren't required to choose their nominee democratically, and even used the media to legitimize Trump because they thought he would be the easiest to beat.

It's not a coincidence that MSNBC showed Trump's empty podium more than a packed Bernie Sanders rally. Trump could be found guilty of colluding with Putin and carted off to prison in an orange jumpsuit, and it wouldn't change any of that. The DNC's pied piper strategy remains a huge miscalculation which helped give us Trump. Having won the popular vote by three million votes, yet loosing the rust belt by 77,744 votes suggests to me that poor campaign strategies had more to do with Hillary's loss than Russian interference.

Even Chuck Schumer knew she was in trouble, which is why he said they would pick up two moderate Republicans for every blue collar Democrat they lost. That also explains her choosing a center-right moderate like Tim Kane as her running mate. It was all just a big middle finger to the progressives that make up the Democratic base. Many Dems in Congress continue giving that middle finger by capitulating to Trump, and they're already going after progressive primary challengers. This is a corporate party, not an opposition party.

Your thread about the probe "jumping the shark" where you mocked allegations concerning the abuse of Facebook and other social media by the Russian bots comes to mind (thankfully the Mercers' Cambridge Analytica is finally in the news).

That thread was meant to tone down the hysteria and hyperbole by exposing how much was spent on ads compared to total revenue for sites like Facebook and Google. It also mentioned how over half of those ads were released after the election, and how some were even anti-Trump. Mark Penn was a chief strategist on presidential campaigns for both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and even he explained why this wasn't a "carefully targeted campaign to move voters." As he put it, you can't buy the presidency for $100,000.

I've also seen the ads, which are your run of the mill propaganda about the military not supporting Hillary, how she stood for satan, etc. Ted Cruz put out a sleazy campaign ad, which is a jingle about how his opponent is going to take guns away from Texans, wants open borders, etc. Propaganda is disingenuous crap, but why is it only a big deal when it comes from outside the United States? You don't see indictments of political campaigns who use the same tactics, even though they have more money and target more people.

Of course, I also included in that thread how journalists were being fired for running with stories regarding Russia-gate that turned out to be false.

But yes, troll farms and companies like Cambridge Analytica should be stopped. That doesn't mean Facebook is innocent in all of this, though. Edward Snowden referred to Facebook as a surveillance company, and said "Facebook makes their money by exploiting and selling intimate details about the private lives of millions, far beyond the scant details you voluntarily post. They are not victims. They are accomplices." Facebook may have suspended Cambridge Analytica, but they're no less complicit in exploiting their users.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

When it comes to corruption before Trump, everybody here is like:

Trump has become the be all end all when it comes to corruption, and I'm somehow not objective for realizing that.

But we're not all that. I for one agree with most of what you've said about the corruption of the Democrats. But it still remains that you have no real interest in the corruption of the guy in the White House presently, and you don't want us to either.

 

[Frank Underwood]

But we're not all that. I for one agree with most of what you've said about the corruption of the Democrats.

Then why does it get turned around into me supposedly not caring about Trump? The reason I created this thread in the first place is because I'm tired of seeing people in the media and on social media treat war criminals and corrupt politicians like heroes simply because they oppose Trump. That doesn't mean I think Trump is beyond reproach. Far from it.

In fact, one of my biggest criticisms of Congressional Democrats is that they often side with Trump. I wouldn't make that criticism if I didn't think Trump himself was horrific.

But it still remains that you have no real interest in the corruption of the guy in the White House presently, and you don't want us to either.

I get miffed because you keep saying that, despite me providing countless reasons as to why that's not true. I've attacked Trump on many fronts, but apparently it's not sufficient because I also acknowledge past crimes and corruption that have gone unpunished. The reason I do so, of course, is because I see those politicians get a pass today from some people.

Like I said in a previous post, if people like Keith Olbermann are willing to praise George Bush today, will they also praise Trump when the next fascist demagogue comes along?

But by all means, believe what you want. I have no reason to lie about how I feel towards Trump, and I'm certainly not trying to control what anybody else posts.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

In fact, one of my biggest criticisms of Congressional Democrats is that they often side with Trump.

No, it isn't. It's because the Congressional Democrats side with Hillary. And too often with the corporation like the Republicans do.

Which is fair enough.

But that's the only thing you're interested in. Emotionalistically, you can't forgive what the DNC and Hillary did to sideline Bernie Sanders, and you vengefully kinda-sorta like how Trump came out the winner instead ---which is why you give him a free ride and/or constantly reroute conversation away from Trump's sins to ".... yeah, but Hillary..." and sometimes act like you're not.

You can, of course, you're not breaking any site rule or anything. But don't ask anybody to pretend that's not happening.

I don't give Hillary a free ride like some here do. And yet you don't see the difference. Not that I mind terribly much.

 

[Frank Underwood]

No, it isn't. It's because the Congressional Democrats side with Hillary. And too often with the corporation like the Republicans do.

Which is fair enough.

Because they side with Hillary? Then why have I been specifically mentioning Congressional Democrats who've capitulated to Trump on his nominees, the military budget, warrantless surveillance, bank deregulation, etc? Just because I've called them out for being aligned with Hillary in the past doesn't mean that's the only thing I've called them out for.

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I say I'm being gaslighted.

But that's the only thing you're interested in. Emotionalistically, you can't forgive what the DNC and Hillary did to sideline Bernie Sanders, and you vengefully kinda-sorta like how Trump came out the winner instead ---which is why you give him a free ride and/or constantly reroute conversation away from Trump's sins to ".... yeah, but Hillary..." and sometimes act like you're not.

You can, of course, you're not breaking any site rule or anything. But don't ask anybody to pretend that's not happening.

But I haven't rerouted any threads lately. I mostly create my own threads these days, as I did with this one. It was specifically about how partisan Dems ignore the corruption in their party while praising war criminals. I also pointed out how it was SER who rerouted my thread about Trump's budget to Hillary, but you didn't have anything to say about that.

But like I said, believe what you want. I already admitted that what I said about Trump winning was a visceral reaction due to sour grapes over Bernie. Neither Trump nor Clinton were acceptable to me. I'm a third party voter on a site that's a sea of Hillary supporters. I've had people here try to shame me for not voting Democrat. I've posted a laundry list of flaws and corruption coming from Hillary and the Democratic Party, only to be told it was inconsequential. My purpose in exposing Hillary and the Dems for what they are hasn't been to undermine Trump's corruption, it's been to shine a light on the fact that our so-called "opposition party" is ultimately Republican light and helped give us Trump.

Two things can be true at the same time, but apparently not here on Soapchat.

I don't give Hillary a free ride like some here do. And yet you don't see the difference. Not that I mind terribly much.

I see the difference, I just though I'd gaslight you for a change. Even so, there's apparently a quota. Once you pass that, you become a Trump supporter.