Trump Derangement Syndrome - Orange man bad. Read the OP! (ᴛʜɪs ᴛʜʀᴇᴀᴅ ɪs ʟɪᴋᴇ ᴋɪᴡɪ ғᴀʀᴍs ʀᴇᴠɪᴇᴡs ɴᴏᴡ) 🗿🗿🗿🗿

[Yandere Science]

Obama pretty much has a "Do not go to jail" card because if he were ever locked up, even for legit crimes, every city with a sizable black population would erupt into flames and death. Just because an action is legal or right, that doesn't mean it's politically expedient.

Then you arrest the black population, charged them, and then use prison labor to tend to the fields since the Mexicans were kicked out. /jk

 

[vertexwindi]

Obama pretty much has a "Do not go to jail" card because if he were ever locked up, even for legit crimes, every city with a sizable black population would erupt into flames and death. Just because an action is legal or right, that doesn't mean it's politically expedient.

Similar to Clinton, funnily enough, where the FBI admitted that if they ever want to lock her up, they'd also have to lock up like 150 government employees and that's just too hard, man.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

Dems and the media would just ignore it, downplay it, or completely dismiss it, just like they've done with pictures of kids in cages circa 2014 and all the other shit that Obama either initiated or perpetuated well before Trump.

That wouldn’t be a smart idea if more than a dozen staff members came forward to say that he raped them. Honestly, I would see massive protests against those who charge Obama for sexual assault. I don’t have a complete set of understanding, but could someone explain to me if a ex president can be charged and sent to prison for a crime committed while in office?

Now again, this is just a thought I’ve been asking. So I can’t say if he did or not. However, I also bring this up because since Obama won’t stop sperging, people aren’t getting annoyed by him especially since he was a shit president.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

That's one fucking spicy retweet, right there. That'll keep people riled up for awhile.

Jesus christ people... we don't even disagree but we can't seem to get on the same page here.

OK, see the above picture? See how it says "Now that russia collusion is a proven lie..."

I get where you're coming from. Your example sounds like you were accused of it and now are being tried for it. This Russia stuff hasn't even made it that far, so there's no "guilty" yet because there's nothing to present. So really it's all just a bunch of gossip and shouldn't hold any value whatsoever. But hey, human nature and all, we can't resist jumping on the train early.

The only real trial happening there is in the court of public opinion, and everyone's already made up their mind. Preponderance of evidence and reasonable doubt aren't taken into account.

OK, so see how these quotes have nothing to do with the repeated question of "OK wait, has the russian collusion actually been proven false?" Nothing to do with court trials, public opinion, or the presumption of innocence. I'm not even arguing here, I'm just getting frustrated that we can't seem to understand one another.

So I'll repeat the question with the tweet in the same post, hopefully that will help. Is the quote in the tweet above factually accurate, in that russian collusion has been proven false? Has some piece of evidence come forward showing the whole thing definitely isn't true?

It's not a trick question, I'm literally asking just that question, no more, no less.

 

[Just Some Other Guy]

The statement itself is errenously worded. If you need hard proof to wave in front of someone that nothing happened then you're out of luck. You can only assume it didn't based on the lack of accusing evidence.

 

[Judge Dredd]

So I'll repeat the question with the tweet in the same post, hopefully that will help. Is the quote in the tweet above factually accurate, in that russian collusion has been proven false? Has some piece of evidence come forward showing the whole thing definitely isn't true?

You can't prove a negative, as @Just Some Other Guy said.

There was a video of someone at CNN admitting they knew the Trump Russia story was a "nothing burger" that they pushed just for ratings. Every investigation has turned up the same 2 things, "fuck" and "all".

 

[Trans Fat 41g]

Stop trying so hard to evaluate a conspiracy theory straight out of TVTropes (at this point) lol.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

You can't prove a negative, as @Just Some Other Guy said.

There was a video of someone at CNN admitting they knew the Trump Russia story was a "nothing burger" that they pushed just for ratings. Every investigation has turned up the same 2 things, "fuck" and "all".

Sure, but some central claim of the steele report could be proven false or something. Like if they said "On december 45th, 3054 Blonald Blumph met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the pee pee tape" and then someone came up with evidence showing Blumph was actually in florida that day, it would be proven false.

Yeah, like I said before, with how ambiguous the accusations are it's hard to imagine how they could be definitively proven false realistically. And it seems I've gotten the answer I expected, the tweet was fake news.

Maybe people just don't know what "Proof" means anymore.

 

[BubbleButt]

いいえ、オバマ様！ やめる！ それは良い感じ！

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Sure, but some central claim of the steele report could be proven false or something. Like if they said "On december 45th, 3054 Blonald Blumph met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the pee pee tape" and then someone came up with evidence showing Blumph was actually in florida that day, it would be proven false.

Yeah, like I said before, with how ambiguous the accusations are it's hard to imagine how they could be definitively proven false realistically. And it seems I've gotten the answer I expected, the tweet was fake news.

Maybe people just don't know what "Proof" means anymore.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

I think that's what the tweet was going for.

 

[Godzilla@1989]

いいえ、オバマ様！ やめる！ それは良い感じ！

私はあなたの猫の少女を食べたいです。

 

[PrincessHomura]

いいえ、オバマ様！ やめる！ それは良い感じ！

私はあなたの猫の少女を食べたいです。

二人共まったく日本語が分かっていないのは明らかですから、もうやめてください。迷惑です。

For something more on-topic, it was a few months ago in this thread when Obama started commenting on Trump stuff that someone remarked how Obama had to be the only former president who refused to fuck off after his term was done. That really stuck with me ever since, and I've been thinking about it a lot. I'm kind of shocked people aren't reacting more to it. Is it that their attention spans are so short that they don't remember that none of the previous presidents stuck around to give their "expert opinions" (see: sour grapes) on everything? Or is it simply that Obama is Superman for doing so because it's against DRUMPF?

 

[JambledUpWords]

Or is it simply that Obama is Superman for doing so because it's against DRUMPF?

Obama is pretty much black Jesus for the Democrats, and since he’s against Trump, it’s all the better. It’s also a reason that if Obama were to be prosecuted and found guilty, the Democrat party will be in an even greater disaster since the media has been making it seem like he had a “scandal free” presidency.

Luckily, Michelle Obama seems to be doing damage control for the DNC, so any idiotic thing Barack says might be swept under the rug for the time being.

 

[PrincessHomura]

obama is by far the most accomplished AND the most popular democratic politician alive. they are 100% convinced that they would have won in 2016 if only obama would have been allowed to run a third time (and i don't think they're wrong about that)
i mean seriously, who else is there in the dems when it comes to leadership material? hillary? feinstein? pelosi? these devious old hags are about as charismatic as fucking jeb bush lmao

tl;dr the dems idolize and deify obama because he is literally all they have.

So based on that, it sounds like the Democratic Party are pushing him to talk about stuff more than him doing it of his own volition. Not that I don't think he likes to have his ego stroked, but sounds like there's more in it for them than there is for him.

 

[muina]

Trouble in paradise?

 

[Scrotus]

obama is by far the most accomplished AND the most popular democratic politician alive. they are 100% convinced that they would have won in 2016 if only obama would have been allowed to run a third time (and i don't think they're wrong about that)
i mean seriously, who else is there in the dems when it comes to leadership material? hillary? feinstein? pelosi? these devious old hags are about as charismatic as fucking jeb bush lmao

tl;dr the dems idolize and deify obama because he is literally all they have.

The aforementioned sacks of potatoes are probably the most accomplished/well known (and have a lot of baggage) but I don't anticipate any of them running.

What might happen is they shove someone younger like Gillibrand or an unknown Ocasio-Cortez type up there to try and pull another Obama. They're definitely pouring a shit ton of money into these people and grooming them.

The special election in Georgia with Jon Ossoff comes to mind in terms of the type of person they would try to nominate.

I'd say the DNC would fast-track her to run in 2020, but they have just one obstacle: Half the party is so dedicated to seeing Hillary as the First Female President that they'll keep running her corpse until it happens.

She's only 29 so they won't be able to run her for another 6 years, but that's six more years of name recognition and experience. Also Hillary might be dead by then lol

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Forget innocent or guilty, I've never even heard a consistent accusation on what the "Russian Collusion" actually WAS. Every time specifics of Russian "involvement" have been offered up, the story changes entirely. The media and the left can't actually settle on an accusation of "Donald Trump did this ------ with the Ruskis and that stole the election." Because if they actually narrow it down to one specific accusation, which is proven false, the story is over. But no, it's almost two years of "WELL SOMETHING HAPPENED!!"

Sure, but some central claim of the steele report could be proven false or something. Like if they said "On december 45th, 3054 Blonald Blumph met with Putin in Moscow to discuss the pee pee tape" and then someone came up with evidence showing Blumph was actually in florida that day, it would be proven false.

Yeah, like I said before, with how ambiguous the accusations are it's hard to imagine how they could be definitively proven false realistically. And it seems I've gotten the answer I expected, the tweet was fake news.

Maybe people just don't know what "Proof" means anymore.

be

The aforementioned sacks of potatoes are probably the most accomplished/well known (and have a lot of baggage) but I don't anticipate any of them running.

What might happen is they shove someone younger like Gillibrand or an unknown Ocasio-Cortez type up there to try and pull another Obama. They're definitely pouring a shit ton of money into these people and grooming them.

The special election in Georgia with Jon Ossoff comes to mind in terms of the type of person they would try to nominate.

Ocasio-Cortez is literally another Obama waiting to happen. She's a blank slate in terms of experience, and any special interests looking to bribe her can get in on the ground floor. The fact that she's all the right adjectives just seals the deal.

I'd say the DNC would fast-track her to run in 2020, but they have just one obstacle: Half the party is so dedicated to seeing Hillary as the First Female President that they'll keep running her corpse until it happens. Of course, the other half would be happy to dump her in the nearest river, so the fun part will be watching those two factions hash it out.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Forget innocent or guilty, I've never even heard a consistent accusation on what the "Russian Collusion" actually WAS. Every time specifics of Russian "involvement" have been offered up, the story changes entirely. The media and the left can't actually settle on an accusation of "Donald Trump did this ------ with the Ruskis and that stole the election." Because if they actually narrow it down to one specific accusation, which is proven false, the story is over. But no, it's almost two years of "WELL SOMETHING HAPPENED!!"

That is a good point. What even is the accusation? You can't prove you didn't do something if you don't know what it is you're supposed to have done.

 

[thismanlies]

Did you just get laid off from your job? It's Trump's fault!

A woman who has spent the past 20 years working at the General Motors plant in Lordstown, Ohio, said in a recent interview that she blames President Trump for the planned closure of GM's sole assembly plant in the state.

Nanette Senters, 55, told Vox in an interview published Thursday that she was “shocked” by the automaker’s plans to close its facility in Ohio and accused the president of giving workers at the plant “false hope” at a rally in the state by telling people he would “bring jobs back.”

“All of the president’s rhetoric has divided the workforce horribly,” Senters told Vox. “I was here when Trump had a rally here last summer. He said, don’t sell your house, do not worry about that. I am going to bring jobs back.”

Her criticism came days after GM announced that it would close up to four auto factories in the U.S. The auto company will discontinue the Chevrolet Cruze next year and has not assigned a new product to the plant, likely closing it.

"From day one, I could see what he was — the way he managed to give people false hope,” Senters said, referring to Trump. “A lot of people are still hoping he will save them now. It’s disturbing.”

She added that while there’s “a lot of blame to go around” over the automaker’s announcement, she puts a “lot of it on our president.”

“I think it all started when Trump repealed the [Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard],” she told the outlet. “When Trump repealed the CAFE standard, that gave GM more of an incentive to get rid of the Chevy Cruze and do this restructuring.”

“The CAFE standard meant that you could produce small cars that are energy-efficient and that would kind of balance out the building of big trucks and gas guzzlers,” Senters added. “Building the Cruze meant that GM could also build many big trucks and still meet fuel efficiency standards.”

When pressed in the interview about reports that some GM workers are asking the president to cancel government contracts with GM and other companies that outsource jobs, Senters said she believes that's a “good” idea in theory but that Trump “is not willing to put his money where his mouth is.”

“And so many of my co-workers, around half of them, are still pinning all their hopes on Trump” Senters said. “I hope I’m wrong. I hope he does do something about the thousands of jobs companies are still sending abroad. But he hasn’t done anything about Carrier, Honeywell, or Harley-Davidson.”

It's Trump's fault. Because, you know, he should be nationalizing every business in America to prevent them from discontinuing production of unprofitable products.

 

[Judge Holden]

That is a good point. What even is the accusation? You can't prove you didn't do something if you don't know what it is you're supposed to have done.

Thats the whole point. Basically it has all been a giant "WOOOooOOO SCARY NOISES WOOOoooOOOO!" ploy in order to try and scare Trump out of the Whitehouse/scare the republicans into impeaching him under the impression that filling all media narratives with scarybad sounding yet utterly fatuous nothingburgers will cause the american public to....do something I guess, im not sure what because there isnt really any thought put into this other than maybe "drag this on for four years and hope it gets him unelected"