(11-14-2017 05:43 PM)jaredf29 Wrote: Quote:You're implying that Trump collected the information like Manning did and gave it to Wiki. That isn't a fact. No I'm not implying that
There is no consistency on the right when defending Trump and I wouldn't say Obama was the victim of Manning's release but rather our national security. So if there's no impropriety here, why would Trump even bother communicating between Wikileaks? Not suggesting anything here, just curious as to why you would think there's a line for communication.
I agree, Hillary and the DNC seemed to stack the deck against Bernie for the sake of funding according to Brazille (who gave Clinton town hall questions). They're all dirty, and frankly I believe they all deserve jail time or at least be barred from public office. I'm not saying one or the other doesn't exist, I'm saying they both do.
Actually you are saying what you claim you aren't... you just apparently aren't smart enough to follow your own analogy.... nor to read.
I never said Obama was the victim.... I said Obama, Commander in Chief of the US military, the victim in this.... commuted him
You called the right hypocrites for their response to Manning, so why isn't the left hypocrites for THEIR response to Manning (commuting him)
The US military is the victim, dude. Obama is the CIC of the victim. I also said Hillary is the victim of Russia's hacking and the US military and their reputation were the victim of Manning. I really don't know how to be more clear.
YOU made the comparison between the situations.... I'm simply pointing out where your comparison fails. The left is clearly trying to say Trump is complicit in the collusion, hence he IS in the same situation as Manning. This you cannot prove.
We can PROVE that Hillary colluded against Bernie. We can PROVE that Manning colluded against the US government.
You treat unproven allegations the same as proven facts for political reasons.
If you'd like to point out where I defended Trump, I'll listen. The only thing I'm defending is the clear difference between facts and allegations.
As to the 'why would Trump talk to them?' the answer seems obvious. First, in general he didn't. Your own author of the article calls the correspondence mostly one sided. Second, because Wiki clearly has produced accurate and verifiable information.
As I said, You're suggesting that if wiki had evidence given to them by a Russian spy of Trump's collusion, that the left wouldn't listen.
That's ridiculous.
I'm more than happy to admit that the left and right are all incredibly bad actors, and I'm more than happy to admit that Trump is at least as bad as any of them and probably HAS done lots of things that are 'actionable'....
But I still don't equate 'probable' with 'proven'... and neither should you.
I suspect you're doing it because he's a Republican and she's a Democrat. If you were doing it because she's a woman and he's a man, you'd be labeled a sexist. If you were doing it because of race, you'd be a racist.
None of those things are good things... so why is it okay to do it because of their party?
Support or not people on actual policy and on their personal verifiable faults of which Trump has NUMEROUS! Collusion with Russia isn't demonstrably one of them. It is AT BEST the same as what Hillary did with them as SOS, something that MAY look bad, but isn't demonstrably a violation of laws... which of course your side denies is a problem
I dislike most Democrats based on policy. I dislike a few of them based on the clear lies they're willing to tell to people to enact those policies (you can keep your doctor etc). The right lies, too.. and I dislike many of them. I just don't equate (and you can look me up on this) lying about the size of his inauguration (which means nothing) to lying about how much something is going to cost me (which means something). I don't really care that Bill lied about Monica.... I only care when the left then hypocritically makes a big deal about Trump's COMMENT. If talk is bad, action is worse... and Trump's opponent was the woman who facilitated Bills actions.