Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left

[Sun Devil 92]

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left | RealClearPolitics

Oh how the world turns.

The birther movement that assailed President Obama represents one of the most unsavory themes of American politics over the last decade. The slurs emanated first from the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, which smeared then-Sen. Obama as “fundamentally not American.” To his discredit, Donald Trump also took up the cause. Thankfully, he did not mention this issue as a presidential candidate in 2016 until he unequivocally, and properly, put it to rest, fully acknowledging President Obama’s birth citizenship. As a campaign surrogate, I regularly denounced the whole birther theme, both in print and on television.

Now, I forcefully denounce a new birtherism, this time from the left via an entrenched and hysterical fixation on Russia and President Trump. Like the Obama birtherism, there are enough fuzzy facts for totally biased people to convince themselves there is some merit to the fanciful concoction. After all, Trump seems unwilling to vigorously condemn Putin’s misdeeds. Trump also was hesitant to enact harsh sanctions against Russia. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed unduly deferential to Putin in the Helsinki press conference, a criticism I myself levied.

*********************

It's so fun to see the hypocrites on the left suck on their loss.

Well birtherism was founded on a 100 percent false premise. Not only that but it's main pursuer was REWARDED for pushing it. Unsavory it might be but it surely was effective.
Anyway in the Russia Trump connection the problem is that the facts known are in fact highly specific and not fussy at all. It can be in no doubt that Russia tried to influence the election. Mueller has been highly specific in the who, how and when of it. Putin and the US intelligence community has been highly specific as to it's purpose. To favor candidate Trump. Mueller has also been successful in getting several guilty pleas from people in the Trump campaign and administration in regards to contacts with the Russians. We know that Don Jr pursued a meeting with proclaimed Russian government contacts in order to get damaging information on Clinton. We know this because he released the email chain which proved he did. We also know that the president of the United States has been pursuing an agenda that could have been written in the Kremlin. We have seen him question NATO, the EU and the UK in the same week he failed to question Putin although Mueller had put out indictments that were so clear and NOT fussy that no president should have failed to use it as at least a tool to get the high ground on the murderer in the Kremlin.
I understand that it his hard to entertain the idea that POTUS is been compromised. I understand that it becomes even more confusing when there literally is another controversy on an almost daily bases. Controversies usually started by some inane tweet from Trump himself. But information doesn't exist in a vacuum and to quote Sherlock Holmes. " if you rule out the impossible. What is left, however unlikely has to be the truth." I have yet to see any other possible explanation that is less unlikely then the president of the United States has to be a Russian asset.

1. Agreed that birtherism was total bullshit.
2. I was with you until your last statement.
3. There are plenty of other explanations.
4. The weight of each of these so called "issues" can never be properly discovered because each one is akin to the birther bullshit.....resulting in what amounts to hysteria.

I won't go further on point 1 and 2 since we agree, so 3.
3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

First, this isn't license to go looking for crimes.

If there is evidence of a crime, you investigate it. If you can't find anything, you stop.

So far, these underlings have been charged for shit they did. Not Trump.

But back to my first point. What are the specific crimes that have been committed.

Russia taking out fake facebook ads isn't a crime.

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

Why don't you spell out the crime you think was committed and why you think it is a crime.

 

[forkup]

Well birtherism was founded on a 100 percent false premise. Not only that but it's main pursuer was REWARDED for pushing it. Unsavory it might be but it surely was effective.
Anyway in the Russia Trump connection the problem is that the facts known are in fact highly specific and not fussy at all. It can be in no doubt that Russia tried to influence the election. Mueller has been highly specific in the who, how and when of it. Putin and the US intelligence community has been highly specific as to it's purpose. To favor candidate Trump. Mueller has also been successful in getting several guilty pleas from people in the Trump campaign and administration in regards to contacts with the Russians. We know that Don Jr pursued a meeting with proclaimed Russian government contacts in order to get damaging information on Clinton. We know this because he released the email chain which proved he did. We also know that the president of the United States has been pursuing an agenda that could have been written in the Kremlin. We have seen him question NATO, the EU and the UK in the same week he failed to question Putin although Mueller had put out indictments that were so clear and NOT fussy that no president should have failed to use it as at least a tool to get the high ground on the murderer in the Kremlin.
I understand that it his hard to entertain the idea that POTUS is been compromised. I understand that it becomes even more confusing when there literally is another controversy on an almost daily bases. Controversies usually started by some inane tweet from Trump himself. But information doesn't exist in a vacuum and to quote Sherlock Holmes. " if you rule out the impossible. What is left, however unlikely has to be the truth." I have yet to see any other possible explanation that is less unlikely then the president of the United States has to be a Russian asset.

1. Agreed that birtherism was total bullshit.
2. I was with you until your last statement.
3. There are plenty of other explanations.
4. The weight of each of these so called "issues" can never be properly discovered because each one is akin to the birther bullshit.....resulting in what amounts to hysteria.

I won't go further on point 1 and 2 since we agree, so 3.
3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

First, this isn't license to go looking for crimes.

If there is evidence of a crime, you investigate it. If you can't find anything, you stop.

So far, these underlings have been charged for shit they did. Not Trump.

But back to my first point. What are the specific crimes that have been committed.

Russia taking out fake facebook ads isn't a crime.

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

If you read the OP (and the statements are from the link), it analyzes the descent of the left wing mind into total fantasy.

The equality isn't the issue, but the irrational responses to the issues. You can got completely nuts over something that "might" be there. You are still going nuts.

Said FACTS mean what ? An evidence of a crime ? That is what is needed...something that indicates something might have happened.

Start there.

I never recall saying it was "limited".

And just what premise was that ? The one that says "I think you did something wrong....so let's take it further ?" Be my guest. Once you've proved something was done wrong.

3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

If you read the OP (and the statements are from the link), it analyzes the descent of the left wing mind into total fantasy.

As I said the original point and not as you claim. "Prove of that what they did was criminal." The second point invalidates the first since it admits that there is at least some merit to the lefts suspicions. It also invalidates the premise that the left is going nuts in any way.

Said FACTS mean what ? An evidence of a crime ? That is what is needed...something that indicates something might have happened.

Again GUILTY pleas mean that people admitted to committing crimes. It is the definition of the word.

I never recall saying it was "limited".

No you didn't and I don't mind going of topic. I mind going of topic because you are unwilling to actually engage on the original one.

And just what premise was that ? The one that says "I think you did something wrong....so let's take it further

3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

 

[forkup]

Well birtherism was founded on a 100 percent false premise. Not only that but it's main pursuer was REWARDED for pushing it. Unsavory it might be but it surely was effective.
Anyway in the Russia Trump connection the problem is that the facts known are in fact highly specific and not fussy at all. It can be in no doubt that Russia tried to influence the election. Mueller has been highly specific in the who, how and when of it. Putin and the US intelligence community has been highly specific as to it's purpose. To favor candidate Trump. Mueller has also been successful in getting several guilty pleas from people in the Trump campaign and administration in regards to contacts with the Russians. We know that Don Jr pursued a meeting with proclaimed Russian government contacts in order to get damaging information on Clinton. We know this because he released the email chain which proved he did. We also know that the president of the United States has been pursuing an agenda that could have been written in the Kremlin. We have seen him question NATO, the EU and the UK in the same week he failed to question Putin although Mueller had put out indictments that were so clear and NOT fussy that no president should have failed to use it as at least a tool to get the high ground on the murderer in the Kremlin.
I understand that it his hard to entertain the idea that POTUS is been compromised. I understand that it becomes even more confusing when there literally is another controversy on an almost daily bases. Controversies usually started by some inane tweet from Trump himself. But information doesn't exist in a vacuum and to quote Sherlock Holmes. " if you rule out the impossible. What is left, however unlikely has to be the truth." I have yet to see any other possible explanation that is less unlikely then the president of the United States has to be a Russian asset.

1. Agreed that birtherism was total bullshit.
2. I was with you until your last statement.
3. There are plenty of other explanations.
4. The weight of each of these so called "issues" can never be properly discovered because each one is akin to the birther bullshit.....resulting in what amounts to hysteria.

I won't go further on point 1 and 2 since we agree, so 3.
3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

First, this isn't license to go looking for crimes.

If there is evidence of a crime, you investigate it. If you can't find anything, you stop.

So far, these underlings have been charged for shit they did. Not Trump.

But back to my first point. What are the specific crimes that have been committed.

Russia taking out fake facebook ads isn't a crime.

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

Why don't you spell out the crime you think was committed and why you think it is a crime.

This is weird, you start an OP and lament because the left is using " fussy facts" and now you are asking me to speculate?
I'm willing to speculate but wouldn't it make more sense to establish clearly what you find justified that I use in that speculation? After all I don't want to be accused of working on "fussy facts"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

1. Agreed that birtherism was total bullshit.
2. I was with you until your last statement.
3. There are plenty of other explanations.
4. The weight of each of these so called "issues" can never be properly discovered because each one is akin to the birther bullshit.....resulting in what amounts to hysteria.

I won't go further on point 1 and 2 since we agree, so 3.
3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

First, this isn't license to go looking for crimes.

If there is evidence of a crime, you investigate it. If you can't find anything, you stop.

So far, these underlings have been charged for shit they did. Not Trump.

But back to my first point. What are the specific crimes that have been committed.

Russia taking out fake facebook ads isn't a crime.

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

Why don't you spell out the crime you think was committed and why you think it is a crime.

This is weird, you start an OP and lament because the left is using " fussy facts" and now you are asking me to speculate?
I'm willing to speculate but wouldn't it make more sense to establish clearly what you find justified that I use in that speculation? After all I don't want to be accused of working on "fussy facts"

IN the end, this is like being in a maze.

Getting back to the OP.

Birthers went nuts.

The left has gone nuts over Russia.

They look and feel the same.

Russia investigation is under way. But you can't separate the truth from the shit because of the amount of shit flying around.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

1. Agreed that birtherism was total bullshit.
2. I was with you until your last statement.
3. There are plenty of other explanations.
4. The weight of each of these so called "issues" can never be properly discovered because each one is akin to the birther bullshit.....resulting in what amounts to hysteria.

I won't go further on point 1 and 2 since we agree, so 3.
3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

First, this isn't license to go looking for crimes.

If there is evidence of a crime, you investigate it. If you can't find anything, you stop.

So far, these underlings have been charged for shit they did. Not Trump.

But back to my first point. What are the specific crimes that have been committed.

Russia taking out fake facebook ads isn't a crime.

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

If you read the OP (and the statements are from the link), it analyzes the descent of the left wing mind into total fantasy.

The equality isn't the issue, but the irrational responses to the issues. You can got completely nuts over something that "might" be there. You are still going nuts.

Said FACTS mean what ? An evidence of a crime ? That is what is needed...something that indicates something might have happened.

Start there.

I never recall saying it was "limited".

And just what premise was that ? The one that says "I think you did something wrong....so let's take it further ?" Be my guest. Once you've proved something was done wrong.

3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

If you read the OP (and the statements are from the link), it analyzes the descent of the left wing mind into total fantasy.

As I said the original point and not as you claim. "Prove of that what they did was criminal." The second point invalidates the first since it admits that there is at least some merit to the lefts suspicions. It also invalidates the premise that the left is going nuts in any way.

Said FACTS mean what ? An evidence of a crime ? That is what is needed...something that indicates something might have happened.

Again GUILTY pleas mean that people admitted to committing crimes. It is the definition of the word.

I never recall saying it was "limited".

No you didn't and I don't mind going of topic. I mind going of topic because you are unwilling to actually engage on the original one.

And just what premise was that ? The one that says "I think you did something wrong....so let's take it further

3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

Trump admitted to something ?

 

[forkup]

I won't go further on point 1 and 2 since we agree, so 3.
3. What other explanation can you give that is more likely? This is an honest question so we can discuss it's merit.
4. None of them are bullshit. Guilty pleas by definition say you did it. Even more if you are willing to say you did it, one has to be concerned and ask, as to what other things you did ,(the only conjecture in this reply) that prompted you to not just say so but also promise cooperation with the prosecutor. An email chain you released yourself is equally undeniable so what prompts you to call it bullshit?

First, this isn't license to go looking for crimes.

If there is evidence of a crime, you investigate it. If you can't find anything, you stop.

So far, these underlings have been charged for shit they did. Not Trump.

But back to my first point. What are the specific crimes that have been committed.

Russia taking out fake facebook ads isn't a crime.

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

Why don't you spell out the crime you think was committed and why you think it is a crime.

This is weird, you start an OP and lament because the left is using " fussy facts" and now you are asking me to speculate?
I'm willing to speculate but wouldn't it make more sense to establish clearly what you find justified that I use in that speculation? After all I don't want to be accused of working on "fussy facts"

IN the end, this is like being in a maze.

Getting back to the OP.

Birthers went nuts.

The left has gone nuts over Russia.

They look and feel the same.

Russia investigation is under way. But you can't separate the truth from the shit because of the amount of shit flying around.

The reason it feels like a maze is because you keep on going deeper into it by changing the argument. You start an OP by claiming the Trump Russia connection is totally baseless. Then you say, " stuff happened but it's not a crime. And now you are changing the argument, to" yes crimes have been committed but Trump is not been implicated. "Watch how you will now change it to, " yes Trump has been implicated but what he did isn't a crime.
The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for. Especially since Trump went on camera and said. He fired the head of the agency charged with carrying out that investigation because they were carrying out that investigation. He was Especially since it's since been admitted that he asked that head to 'go easy' on one of the people who was being investigated. Especially since it's since been admitted that he personally dictated a false statement of the nature of a meeting his SON had on his behest with people who claimed to represent the Russian government, with the express purpose of getting, "dirt in Hilary."

 

[John Shaw]

And Donald Trump was rewarded for his involvement in birtherism. What does that tell you?

It tells me that Americans are incredibly stupid. American stupidity cuts both ways, it seems ...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

First, this isn't license to go looking for crimes.

If there is evidence of a crime, you investigate it. If you can't find anything, you stop.

So far, these underlings have been charged for shit they did. Not Trump.

But back to my first point. What are the specific crimes that have been committed.

Russia taking out fake facebook ads isn't a crime.

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

Why don't you spell out the crime you think was committed and why you think it is a crime.

This is weird, you start an OP and lament because the left is using " fussy facts" and now you are asking me to speculate?
I'm willing to speculate but wouldn't it make more sense to establish clearly what you find justified that I use in that speculation? After all I don't want to be accused of working on "fussy facts"

IN the end, this is like being in a maze.

Getting back to the OP.

Birthers went nuts.

The left has gone nuts over Russia.

They look and feel the same.

Russia investigation is under way. But you can't separate the truth from the shit because of the amount of shit flying around.

The reason it feels like a maze is because you keep on going deeper into it by changing the argument. You start an OP by claiming the Trump Russia connection is totally baseless. Then you say, " stuff happened but it's not a crime. And now you are changing the argument, to" yes crimes have been committed but Trump is not been implicated. "Watch how you will now change it to, " yes Trump has been implicated but what he did isn't a crime.
The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for. Especially since Trump went on camera and said. He fired the head of the agency charged with carrying out that investigation because they were carrying out that investigation. He was Especially since it's since been admitted that he asked that head to 'go easy' on one of the people who was being investigated. Especially since it's since been admitted that he personally dictated a false statement of the nature of a meeting his SON had on his behest with people who claimed to represent the Russian government, with the express purpose of getting, "dirt in Hilary."

I don't recall saying that it was baseless.

What I said and what the OP is saying is that the level of hysteria about Russia (regardless of whether Trump is guilty or not) is at the same fever pitch as the birther bullshit movement.

It has nothing to do with facts. It's a commentary on the shit-slinging screecihng of the left.

That is all.

 

[Syriusly]

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left | RealClearPolitics

Oh how the world turns.

The birther movement that assailed President Obama represents one of the most unsavory themes of American politics over the last decade. The slurs emanated first from the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, which smeared then-Sen. Obama as “fundamentally not American.” To his discredit, Donald Trump also took up the cause. Thankfully, he did not mention this issue as a presidential candidate in 2016 until he unequivocally, and properly, put it to rest, fully acknowledging President Obama’s birth citizenship. As a campaign surrogate, I regularly denounced the whole birther theme, both in print and on television.

Now, I forcefully denounce a new birtherism, this time from the left via an entrenched and hysterical fixation on Russia and President Trump. Like the Obama birtherism, there are enough fuzzy facts for totally biased people to convince themselves there is some merit to the fanciful concoction. After all, Trump seems unwilling to vigorously condemn Putin’s misdeeds. Trump also was hesitant to enact harsh sanctions against Russia. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed unduly deferential to Putin in the Helsinki press conference, a criticism I myself levied.

*********************

It's so fun to see the hypocrites on the left suck on their loss.

Well lets see- the author the article you cited- lied several times.

The 'slurs' of Birtherism didn't start with the Clinton campaign- no matter how much Don the Con has tried to blame Clinton for his Birther idiocy.

Donald Trump went full Birther from 2011 to 2016- 5 years- yet the OP excuses Don the Con as not mentioning this as a Presidential candidate.....really?

It wasn't until Don the Con got the Republican nomination that he then - barely- stopped his Birther idiocy.

And of course blamed others for it.

The hypocrisy of starting a thread about Birtherism- and absolving Don the Con is pretty hilarious.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for.

Garbage.

Now, the points you make following that are (by themselves....not in support the above statement) certainly worth looking at.

But, your statement above is absolutely not true.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left | RealClearPolitics

Oh how the world turns.

The birther movement that assailed President Obama represents one of the most unsavory themes of American politics over the last decade. The slurs emanated first from the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, which smeared then-Sen. Obama as “fundamentally not American.” To his discredit, Donald Trump also took up the cause. Thankfully, he did not mention this issue as a presidential candidate in 2016 until he unequivocally, and properly, put it to rest, fully acknowledging President Obama’s birth citizenship. As a campaign surrogate, I regularly denounced the whole birther theme, both in print and on television.

Now, I forcefully denounce a new birtherism, this time from the left via an entrenched and hysterical fixation on Russia and President Trump. Like the Obama birtherism, there are enough fuzzy facts for totally biased people to convince themselves there is some merit to the fanciful concoction. After all, Trump seems unwilling to vigorously condemn Putin’s misdeeds. Trump also was hesitant to enact harsh sanctions against Russia. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed unduly deferential to Putin in the Helsinki press conference, a criticism I myself levied.

*********************

It's so fun to see the hypocrites on the left suck on their loss.

Well lets see- the author the article you cited- lied several times.

The 'slurs' of Birtherism didn't start with the Clinton campaign- no matter how much Don the Con has tried to blame Clinton for his Birther idiocy.

Donald Trump went full Birther from 2011 to 2016- 5 years- yet the OP excuses Don the Con as not mentioning this as a Presidential candidate.....really?

It wasn't until Don the Con got the Republican nomination that he then - barely- stopped his Birther idiocy.

And of course blamed others for it.

The hypocrisy of starting a thread about Birtherism- and absolving Don the Con is pretty hilarious.

What is hilarious is your baboon like reaction.

First, I think the author states that birtherism was stupid. From the start. Donald Trumps campaign on the matter can be considered no less stupid.

This thread, however, is about the hysteria level of the left regarding Russia.

You can be as right as rain and still fail to make your point if you come across as a lunatic (or in this case....a lunatic party).

Trumps lack off accountability has always been one of his defining features.

Trump appointing SCOTUS judges instead of Clinton (who also lacks accountability.....why I lost.....not because of me) is all I care about.

 

[forkup]

The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for.

Garbage.

Now, the points you make following that are (by themselves....not in support the above statement) certainly worth looking at.

But, your statement above is absolutely not true.

So you find it completely credible to claim that several people close to the president, people like his son, the then campaign manager, his son in law, one of his foreign advisers and the guy you earmarked for the post of National Security Adviser all have meetings with Russian representatives including the freaking ambassador of Russia without notifying they are doing so? If you believe that I've got 50 pounds of baked air to sell to you at bargain prices.
Having said that I do congratulate you for not going where I thought you were going to go and say that I now have to prove the criminality of what Trump did.
The next part though puts you in a tough spot though. If you acknowledge that some of the presidents actions in the Russia sage warrants further scrutiny, does that not invalidate your claim that the left is going crazy? I don't see how something can both be "crazy" and worth looking at, at the same time.

 

[Syriusly]

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left | RealClearPolitics

Oh how the world turns.

The birther movement that assailed President Obama represents one of the most unsavory themes of American politics over the last decade. The slurs emanated first from the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, which smeared then-Sen. Obama as “fundamentally not American.” To his discredit, Donald Trump also took up the cause. Thankfully, he did not mention this issue as a presidential candidate in 2016 until he unequivocally, and properly, put it to rest, fully acknowledging President Obama’s birth citizenship. As a campaign surrogate, I regularly denounced the whole birther theme, both in print and on television.

Now, I forcefully denounce a new birtherism, this time from the left via an entrenched and hysterical fixation on Russia and President Trump. Like the Obama birtherism, there are enough fuzzy facts for totally biased people to convince themselves there is some merit to the fanciful concoction. After all, Trump seems unwilling to vigorously condemn Putin’s misdeeds. Trump also was hesitant to enact harsh sanctions against Russia. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed unduly deferential to Putin in the Helsinki press conference, a criticism I myself levied.

*********************

It's so fun to see the hypocrites on the left suck on their loss.

Well lets see- the author the article you cited- lied several times.

The 'slurs' of Birtherism didn't start with the Clinton campaign- no matter how much Don the Con has tried to blame Clinton for his Birther idiocy.

Donald Trump went full Birther from 2011 to 2016- 5 years- yet the OP excuses Don the Con as not mentioning this as a Presidential candidate.....really?

It wasn't until Don the Con got the Republican nomination that he then - barely- stopped his Birther idiocy.

And of course blamed others for it.

The hypocrisy of starting a thread about Birtherism- and absolving Don the Con is pretty hilarious.

What is hilarious is your baboon like reaction.

First, I think the author states that birtherism was stupid. From the start. Donald Trumps campaign on the matter can be considered no less stupid..

The author gave a very Trumpian denouncement of Trump's Birtherism- not only glossing over it- but at the same time pretending that it was Clinton's fault.

While there were a few on the Left who initially embraced some Birtherism, by 2008 it was entirely the far Right which promoted Birtherism.

Trump jumped on board in 2011, when Don the Con was first exploring running for President.

What was the essential differences between Don the Con's Birtherism- and the Russia investigation?

Don the Con never had any evidence to support any of his Birther claims attacking the legitimacy of President Obama.

We have proof that Russia did indeed purposely attack the American election in 2016- with the intention of harming Clinton's election- breaking actual laws- and also tried to attack the voting systems of various states- not even Don the Con disagrees with that- well not at least this week- who knows next week.

Contrast that with Birtherism- which even when Don the Con saw proof of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii- even when the State of Hawaii confirmed he was born there- Trump continued with his Birther idiocy- and didn't change his position until he got the Republican nomination.

Remember- not a thing changed from the last time that Trump went full Birther- until he changed to blaming his Birtherism on Clinton- except that Don the Con got the Republican nomination.

 

[forkup]

Actually your first point was that investigating a connection between the Trump campaign and presidency equals birtherism. Something that is pretty easily to rebuke considering the FACTS already in the public realm. A suspicion of such a break in the national security of the country actually does warrant going looking for a crime. Actually the justice system is set up in such a way that an investigation always STARTS with a suspicion, (the whole presumed innocent thing).
Oh and trying to make the point that the Russian activity was confined to facebook adds shows an unwillingness to get the relevant information ( unlikely since we are on a political forum) or simple dishonesty.
I have a question though since you are no seemingly eager to derail your own OP. Why aren't you engaging the premise of what I asked?

Why don't you spell out the crime you think was committed and why you think it is a crime.

This is weird, you start an OP and lament because the left is using " fussy facts" and now you are asking me to speculate?
I'm willing to speculate but wouldn't it make more sense to establish clearly what you find justified that I use in that speculation? After all I don't want to be accused of working on "fussy facts"

IN the end, this is like being in a maze.

Getting back to the OP.

Birthers went nuts.

The left has gone nuts over Russia.

They look and feel the same.

Russia investigation is under way. But you can't separate the truth from the shit because of the amount of shit flying around.

The reason it feels like a maze is because you keep on going deeper into it by changing the argument. You start an OP by claiming the Trump Russia connection is totally baseless. Then you say, " stuff happened but it's not a crime. And now you are changing the argument, to" yes crimes have been committed but Trump is not been implicated. "Watch how you will now change it to, " yes Trump has been implicated but what he did isn't a crime.
The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for. Especially since Trump went on camera and said. He fired the head of the agency charged with carrying out that investigation because they were carrying out that investigation. He was Especially since it's since been admitted that he asked that head to 'go easy' on one of the people who was being investigated. Especially since it's since been admitted that he personally dictated a false statement of the nature of a meeting his SON had on his behest with people who claimed to represent the Russian government, with the express purpose of getting, "dirt in Hilary."

I don't recall saying that it was baseless.

What I said and what the OP is saying is that the level of hysteria about Russia (regardless of whether Trump is guilty or not) is at the same fever pitch as the birther bullshit movement.

It has nothing to do with facts. It's a commentary on the shit-slinging screecihng of the left.

That is all.

Well if you compare something that is not vested in reality whatsoever and compare it to something else. I feel you imply that whatever you are comparing it too isn't vested in reality either. Of course that's an assumption on what you mean.
As to the level of hysteria. Well the facts that are available show that an election campaign for president was unduly and criminally influenced by an adversarial government. It further shows that the campaign for the candidate that was helped by that influence was actively seeking help from that same adversarial government. And now after that candidate won, we see that that candidate as president is now unwilling to prosecute anything that is in any way detrimental to the government that helped him. So loose from what we can prove, a touch of hysteria is both expected and warranted.
It comes down to the question I asked before.
If you have a more likely explanation then the president is compromised, that fit those facts I'm all ears.

 

[Syriusly]

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left | RealClearPolitics

Oh how the world turns.

The birther movement that assailed President Obama represents one of the most unsavory themes of American politics over the last decade. The slurs emanated first from the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, which smeared then-Sen. Obama as “fundamentally not American.” To his discredit, Donald Trump also took up the cause. Thankfully, he did not mention this issue as a presidential candidate in 2016 until he unequivocally, and properly, put it to rest, fully acknowledging President Obama’s birth citizenship. As a campaign surrogate, I regularly denounced the whole birther theme, both in print and on television.

Now, I forcefully denounce a new birtherism, this time from the left via an entrenched and hysterical fixation on Russia and President Trump. Like the Obama birtherism, there are enough fuzzy facts for totally biased people to convince themselves there is some merit to the fanciful concoction. After all, Trump seems unwilling to vigorously condemn Putin’s misdeeds. Trump also was hesitant to enact harsh sanctions against Russia. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed unduly deferential to Putin in the Helsinki press conference, a criticism I myself levied.

*********************

It's so fun to see the hypocrites on the left suck on their loss.

Well lets see- the author the article you cited- lied several times.

The 'slurs' of Birtherism didn't start with the Clinton campaign- no matter how much Don the Con has tried to blame Clinton for his Birther idiocy.

Donald Trump went full Birther from 2011 to 2016- 5 years- yet the OP excuses Don the Con as not mentioning this as a Presidential candidate.....really?

It wasn't until Don the Con got the Republican nomination that he then - barely- stopped his Birther idiocy.

And of course blamed others for it.

The hypocrisy of starting a thread about Birtherism- and absolving Don the Con is pretty hilarious.

This thread, however, is about the hysteria level of the left regarding Russia.

You can be as right as rain and still fail to make your point if you come across as a lunatic (or in this case....a lunatic party).

Trumps lack off accountability has always been one of his defining features.

Trump appointing SCOTUS judges instead of Clinton (who also lacks accountability.....why I lost.....not because of me) is all I care about.

I get that you don't care what Trump does or says as long as he appoints judges you approve of.

Then again- you are an idiot if you think that everything that is going on about Russia is 'hysteria' from the left.

Don the Con's Russia performance was panned by almost everyone except Sean Hannity who would be applauding if Don the Con handed our nuclear codes to Putin.

The Russia investigation started because of completely valid concerns that Russia was attacking our election system- and grew to include the Trump campaign because of several possible connections between the Trump campaign and Russia- including the FBI believing that Carter Page was a Russian agent.

The Republican special counsel was appointed by the Trump appointed Republican Assistant Attorney General- again- hardly 'hysteria from the left'.

Really the only 'hysteria' that is obvious- are the hysterical tweets from Don the Con continually whining that there was no collusion and that its all a witch hunt- the GREATEST WITCH HUNT in American history!

No surprise that America's greatest Birther has become America's greatest hysteria monger.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for.

Garbage.

Now, the points you make following that are (by themselves....not in support the above statement) certainly worth looking at.

But, your statement above is absolutely not true.

So you find it completely credible to claim that several people close to the president, people like his son, the then campaign manager, his son in law, one of his foreign advisers and the guy you earmarked for the post of National Security Adviser all have meetings with Russian representatives including the freaking ambassador of Russia without notifying they are doing so? If you believe that I've got 50 pounds of baked air to sell to you at bargain prices.
Having said that I do congratulate you for not going where I thought you were going to go and say that I now have to prove the criminality of what Trump did.
The next part though puts you in a tough spot though. If you acknowledge that some of the presidents actions in the Russia sage warrants further scrutiny, does that not invalidate your claim that the left is going crazy? I don't see how something can both be "crazy" and worth looking at, at the same time.

What you see or don't see....I can't help.

What I have said all along and what I started this thread....is that you have a situation where the left looks as hysterical as the right.

If you are saying that plausibility excuses hysteria.....I disagree.

I am saying that it is quite possible that those around Trump and even Trump himself committed some type of foul. How egregious....I don't know.

That isn't the point of the thread.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Russia Mania Is the Birtherism of the Left | RealClearPolitics

Oh how the world turns.

The birther movement that assailed President Obama represents one of the most unsavory themes of American politics over the last decade. The slurs emanated first from the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2008, which smeared then-Sen. Obama as “fundamentally not American.” To his discredit, Donald Trump also took up the cause. Thankfully, he did not mention this issue as a presidential candidate in 2016 until he unequivocally, and properly, put it to rest, fully acknowledging President Obama’s birth citizenship. As a campaign surrogate, I regularly denounced the whole birther theme, both in print and on television.

Now, I forcefully denounce a new birtherism, this time from the left via an entrenched and hysterical fixation on Russia and President Trump. Like the Obama birtherism, there are enough fuzzy facts for totally biased people to convince themselves there is some merit to the fanciful concoction. After all, Trump seems unwilling to vigorously condemn Putin’s misdeeds. Trump also was hesitant to enact harsh sanctions against Russia. Perhaps most importantly, he seemed unduly deferential to Putin in the Helsinki press conference, a criticism I myself levied.

*********************

It's so fun to see the hypocrites on the left suck on their loss.

Well lets see- the author the article you cited- lied several times.

The 'slurs' of Birtherism didn't start with the Clinton campaign- no matter how much Don the Con has tried to blame Clinton for his Birther idiocy.

Donald Trump went full Birther from 2011 to 2016- 5 years- yet the OP excuses Don the Con as not mentioning this as a Presidential candidate.....really?

It wasn't until Don the Con got the Republican nomination that he then - barely- stopped his Birther idiocy.

And of course blamed others for it.

The hypocrisy of starting a thread about Birtherism- and absolving Don the Con is pretty hilarious.

What is hilarious is your baboon like reaction.

First, I think the author states that birtherism was stupid. From the start. Donald Trumps campaign on the matter can be considered no less stupid..

The author gave a very Trumpian denouncement of Trump's Birtherism- not only glossing over it- but at the same time pretending that it was Clinton's fault.

While there were a few on the Left who initially embraced some Birtherism, by 2008 it was entirely the far Right which promoted Birtherism.

Trump jumped on board in 2011, when Don the Con was first exploring running for President.

What was the essential differences between Don the Con's Birtherism- and the Russia investigation?

Don the Con never had any evidence to support any of his Birther claims attacking the legitimacy of President Obama.

We have proof that Russia did indeed purposely attack the American election in 2016- with the intention of harming Clinton's election- breaking actual laws- and also tried to attack the voting systems of various states- not even Don the Con disagrees with that- well not at least this week- who knows next week.

Contrast that with Birtherism- which even when Don the Con saw proof of Barack Obama's birth in Hawaii- even when the State of Hawaii confirmed he was born there- Trump continued with his Birther idiocy- and didn't change his position until he got the Republican nomination.

Remember- not a thing changed from the last time that Trump went full Birther- until he changed to blaming his Birtherism on Clinton- except that Don the Con got the Republican nomination.

Your post is a great example of what the OP is talking about.

Me...could care less about birtherism. Never gave much to it. Thought those who engaged in it...including Trump...were stupid.

Me....I see the left in a shitrhowing tantrum over Russia. It could all be true and would not change the fact that they are behaving like a bunch of baboons.

You included.

 

[Syriusly]

I think this thread is a great opportunity to remember how stupid Birtherism was- and how Donald Trump took up the banner of Birtherism in 2011.

here’s Don the Con's the timeline:

• February 10, 2011: Trump gives a speech to CPAC in which he says he’s thinking about running for president, and dips his toe into birtherism. "Our current president came out of nowhere. Came out of nowhere," he told the crowd. "In fact, I'll go a step further: The people that went to school with him, they never saw him, they don't know who he is. It's crazy."
• March 23, 2011: Trump says on The View: "I want him to show his birth certificate. I want him to show his birth certificate. ... There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like."
• March 28, 2011: Asked on Fox & Friends whether he thinks Obama was born in this country, Trump responds, "I am really concerned." He went on to speculate that the birth announcement for Obama in a Hawaii newspaper could have been planted "for whatever reason."
• March 30, 2011: Trump says on The O’Reilly Factor, "If you are going to be president of the United States you have to be born in this country. And there is a doubt as to whether or not he was. ... He doesn't have a birth certificate. He may have one, but there's something on that, maybe religion, maybe it says he is a Muslim. I don't know. Maybe he doesn't want that. Or he may not have one. But I will tell you this. If he wasn't born in this country, it's one of the great scams of all time."
• April 7, 2011: Trump claims on NBC that he has sent a team of investigators to Hawaii to study the matter. "I have people that have been studying it, and they cannot believe what they're finding," he said. "You are not allowed to be a president if you're not born in this country. Right now I have real doubts."
• April 15, 2011: A poll shows Trump in first place in the Republican primary race (though he hasn’t announced a candidacy and won’t end up doing so).
• April 19, 2011: In a statement that is hilarious in retrospect, Trump tells ABC he would "love" to release his tax returns, and that he’d "maybe" do it once Obama released his birth certificate. (More than five years later, Trump has still never released his tax returns.)
• April 25, 2011: Trump tells Anderson Cooper, "I've been told very recently, Anderson, that the birth certificate is missing. I've been told that it's not there or it doesn't exist. And if that's the case, it's a big problem."
• April 27, 2011: President Obama releases his original longform birth certificate, attempting to at long last put the matter to rest. Trump responds by ... simply changing the subject to Obama’s college records. "The word is, according to what I’ve read, that he was a terrible student when he went to Occidental. He then gets to Columbia; he then gets to Harvard," Trump said. "Maybe that’s right, or maybe it’s wrong. But I don’t know why he doesn’t release his records.

Then there were the Don the Con tweets:
Let's take a closer look at that birth certificate. @BarackObama was described in 2003 as being "born in Kenya." Shocker! Obama still ‘Kenyan-born’ in 2007

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 18, 2012
An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 6, 2012
Why do the Republicans keep apologizing on the so called "birther" issue? No more apologies--take the offensive!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 27, 2012
Wake Up America! See article: "Israeli Science: Obama Birth Certificate is a Fake" Israeli Science: Obama Birth Certificate Is A Fake - Freedom Outpost

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 13, 2012
How amazing, the State Health Director who verified copies of Obama’s "birth certificate" died in plane crash today. All others lived

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2013
Attention all hackers: You are hacking everything else so please hack Obama's college records (destroyed?) and check "place of birth"

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 6, 2014

Trump fanned a conspiracy about Obama's birthplace for years. Now he pretends Clinton started it.

Now let us compare that with the Russia probe- shall we?
Who's been charged by Mueller in the Russia probe so far?

13 Russian nationals
A grand jury indicted 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies in February for allegedly interfering in the 2016 election. In the case, Mueller details a sophisticated plot to wage “information warfare” on the U.S.

The indictment is the first to be brought against Russian nationals in Mueller's investigation.

However, the Justice Department said the indictment does not allege that the interference changed the outcome of the election.

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity," said Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe.

12 Russian intelligence officers
The Justice Department on July 13 announced that 12 Russian intelligence officers were indicted for allegedly hacking the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign during the 2016 election.

All 12 are members of GRU, the Russian intelligence agency.

The indictments, which stem from the Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into Russia’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, were announced by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why don't you spell out the crime you think was committed and why you think it is a crime.

This is weird, you start an OP and lament because the left is using " fussy facts" and now you are asking me to speculate?
I'm willing to speculate but wouldn't it make more sense to establish clearly what you find justified that I use in that speculation? After all I don't want to be accused of working on "fussy facts"

IN the end, this is like being in a maze.

Getting back to the OP.

Birthers went nuts.

The left has gone nuts over Russia.

They look and feel the same.

Russia investigation is under way. But you can't separate the truth from the shit because of the amount of shit flying around.

The reason it feels like a maze is because you keep on going deeper into it by changing the argument. You start an OP by claiming the Trump Russia connection is totally baseless. Then you say, " stuff happened but it's not a crime. And now you are changing the argument, to" yes crimes have been committed but Trump is not been implicated. "Watch how you will now change it to, " yes Trump has been implicated but what he did isn't a crime.
The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for. Especially since Trump went on camera and said. He fired the head of the agency charged with carrying out that investigation because they were carrying out that investigation. He was Especially since it's since been admitted that he asked that head to 'go easy' on one of the people who was being investigated. Especially since it's since been admitted that he personally dictated a false statement of the nature of a meeting his SON had on his behest with people who claimed to represent the Russian government, with the express purpose of getting, "dirt in Hilary."

I don't recall saying that it was baseless.

What I said and what the OP is saying is that the level of hysteria about Russia (regardless of whether Trump is guilty or not) is at the same fever pitch as the birther bullshit movement.

It has nothing to do with facts. It's a commentary on the shit-slinging screecihng of the left.

That is all.

Well if you compare something that is not vested in reality whatsoever and compare it to something else. I feel you imply that whatever you are comparing it too isn't vested in reality either. Of course that's an assumption on what you mean.
As to the level of hysteria. Well the facts that are available show that an election campaign for president was unduly and criminally influenced by an adversarial government. It further shows that the campaign for the candidate that was helped by that influence was actively seeking help from that same adversarial government. And now after that candidate won, we see that that candidate as president is now unwilling to prosecute anything that is in any way detrimental to the government that helped him. So loose from what we can prove, a touch of hysteria is both expected and warranted.
It comes down to the question I asked before.
If you have a more likely explanation then the president is compromised, that fit those facts I'm all ears.

I am not going to explain the point of the OP again.

You can keep posting this all you want.

 

[Syriusly]

The fact that people do criminal acts in pursuit of a political campaign, by nature implicates the person who they are campaigning for.

Garbage.

Now, the points you make following that are (by themselves....not in support the above statement) certainly worth looking at.

But, your statement above is absolutely not true.

So you find it completely credible to claim that several people close to the president, people like his son, the then campaign manager, his son in law, one of his foreign advisers and the guy you earmarked for the post of National Security Adviser all have meetings with Russian representatives including the freaking ambassador of Russia without notifying they are doing so? If you believe that I've got 50 pounds of baked air to sell to you at bargain prices.
Having said that I do congratulate you for not going where I thought you were going to go and say that I now have to prove the criminality of what Trump did.
The next part though puts you in a tough spot though. If you acknowledge that some of the presidents actions in the Russia sage warrants further scrutiny, does that not invalidate your claim that the left is going crazy? I don't see how something can both be "crazy" and worth looking at, at the same time.

What you see or don't see....I can't help.

What I have said all along and what I started this thread....is that you have a situation where the left looks as hysterical as the right.

If you are saying that plausibility excuses hysteria.....I disagree.

I am saying that it is quite possible that those around Trump and even Trump himself committed some type of foul. How egregious....I don't know.

That isn't the point of the thread.

I am not sure what the point of the thread is- other than to compare an idiocy that Trump promoted for 5 years with an investigation into Russia election interference that has so far indicted 24 Russians.

The only real point of comparison are Trump's own hysterical tweets in both instances.