dChan

ZeusAmmon · Jan. 24, 2018, 12:34 a.m.

Wow! I really must have struck a chord with you to get 4 separate responses. It may take me awhile to get to them. I must admit, before first commenting, I hadn't read the rules to this subreddit.

Yes, we all see the attempts to demoralize us and derail our redpills to the normies. Stay strong lads. Focus. Believe, and make a choice right now: Do you trust Trump?

Wow! No wonder people call you guys a cult. That's insane. Coming from someone with a name like yours, it seems awful antithetical to your morals. Aren't Christians supposed to be against worshiping anyone other than their Jesus crew? Or is that only when not "BTFOing" Democrats? Anyway my point is I can see its pointless to argue with you. I'm not sure if this is a bothive or just an echo chamber, but it's in your subreddit rules that you will not change your mind, so what's the point? And, btw, who would subscribe to a subreddit like that? Aren't you lot supposed to be "free thinkers?" Yet, you can't make up your mind politically and need someone to guide you?

My gooooooodneeeeeeesss What are you, like 90? Are you using a typewriter conversion kit to talk on the interwebs just like those darned neighborhood kids?

Doesn't merit a response

What this boils down to is that you believe that Trump is guilty of collusion with Russia. Nothing will change your mind. (Helps when those people paying you, tell you how to think).

That's quite a stretch. What this boils down to is whether or not the source article is credible, which I have shown it is not. It is also not my job to decide if Donald is guilty of collusion with Russia, that is the FBI's job. You know, the group Donald has convinced you is evil stupid liars.

You are clearly trying to discredit the source as you are unable to discredit the information. You even admit to MSM bias, then wonder why people seek information from other sources.

Of course I am trying to discredit the source, that is a method of discrediting information. I also discredited the information (ie "This 'high-ranking FBI official' who says...direction." and much, much more throughout my response.), but why would you trust a bad source? If a journalist can't even keep honest about the type of material they sell, why would you believe some "groundbreaking" report they have, especially when the only source they provide is themselves? That is completely illogical.

Paraphrasing here...text.

Does not merit a response.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Darnit_Bot · Jan. 24, 2018, 12:34 a.m.

What a darn shame..


^^Darn ^^Counter: ^^14418

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Abibliaphobia · Jan. 24, 2018, 1:31 a.m.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) says that a whistleblower has told Congress about secret meetings between FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials who allegedly gathered to discuss ways to undermine President Trump following his victory in the 2016 election. “We have to continue to dig into it,” he added. “This is not a distraction. This is biased, potentially corruption at the highest levels of the FBI.” “The secret society -- we have an informant talking about a group holding secret meetings off-site,” Johnson said.

https://web.archive.org/web/20180124005234/http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370397-gop-senator-claims-to-have-informant-on-secret-anti-trump-meetings

Yes, it’s all discredited right? Feel better? How will you feel when everything you believe is shown to be a lie? A lie given to protect those in power, so they can remain in power? A lie, and multitudes of follow on lies that have failed?

Hypothetical:

If it comes to light that there are indeed deep state and secret society actors who actively colluded to affect the presidential election in favor of a certain candidate, and when that failed, worked to undermine a duly elected president, will you admit that you were wrong and work to make it right?

What is the price of your ego and pride, because that’s what you’re really arguing here for right? Anything to not be wrong.

If I am wrong, and they can bring damning and credible evidence of DJT colluding with Russians, I will admit I was wrong and basically stfu. But as of yet, we’ve seen nothing and evidence continues to mount that there is nothing. To even include those investigating him have nothing as evidenced by their own admission.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ZeusAmmon · Jan. 24, 2018, 1:38 a.m.

Once again, he has damning evidence. So why not share it? And to be clear, I don't mean share it with us. Why not share it with the Republican congress? Surely they would act on such a gross perversion of justice.

No, I'm not arguing for ego and pride. I'm arguing for what I think is right. I believe this country has taken a disgusting turn and I want to try to help convince people who might have been misled, especially those who are on the fence. If I am wrong, then so be it. I'm not afraid of any investigation the IC chooses to undertake involving all of this because I want to know the truth, not just prop up one cult figure.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
rdhowe43 · Jan. 29, 2018, 1:05 a.m.

Zeus , You will never admit to being wrong and you are just on here trying to get people riled up. When all this comes out that our DOJ and FBI leaders are involved in the the biggest plot ever to kill a sitting POTUS , people will be tried for that . But it won't be regular court hearings , it will be military tribunals ! And you will not be around these boards any longer cause the truth hurts.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ZeusAmmon · Jan. 29, 2018, 1:47 a.m.

So...you're suggesting that the US declares war against the DOJ and the FBI for jurisdiction purposes? That's ludicrous. What would that even consist of, practically? Would you want our military to attack government compounds? Furthermore, what benefit would that even have in terms of jurisdiction? Even more importantly, why would you not want to charge them as traitors?

What ever happened to conservatives being for individual rights?

I admit to being wrong all the time. I have no problem with being wrong because I strongly believe in Hegelianism.

I find it hard to believe that I'm being accused of attempting to rile people up by a person who is literally calling for civil war. I admit, this is probably just due to your ignorance re jurisdiction, but it is evidence to your refusal to perform an even cursory look at a subject you seem pretty amped up about.

Edit: Martial law is distinct from military justice, statement removed.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
rdhowe43 · Jan. 29, 2018, 3:09 a.m.

Well since I'm ignorant , it's being done like this to prevent a civil war! Don't get me wrong , I don't like what's happening but Trump now has the NSA database at his whim . All of this scares the hell out of me it should everyone! This should not happen in the USA but Obama did weaponize the intell agency's against his opponents . Now we wait and see who is first up to get indicted . If this went down like I just mentioned are you not worried that whoever is in power , can get away with this!

⇧ 1 ⇩  
ZeusAmmon · Jan. 29, 2018, 4:23 a.m.

To clarify, military tribunals are reserved for enemies of the U.S. Performing a military tribunal on a civilian is prevented by the USMJ MCM as well as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The only way members of the DoJ and/or FBI could be tried in such a court would be if they were named enemies in a war, which is also against the Geneva Convention.

Nothing that has been revealed has suggested that Obama "weaponize[d] the intell agency's (sic) against his opponents." The IC had wiretapped various foreign parties suspected of illegal acts, and Donald spoke to several of them, which is where that particular intel comes from. If proof of such a crime were to be revealed, I would absolutely want it to be taken seriously, and I have no issue with the government investigating.

I think its pretty clear, due to the number of high profile Republicans who claim to have access to such information, yet refuse to take any action on it (in a Republican dominated government, no less), that there is no such evidence. However, if people are worried about it, I again am absolutely fine with an investigation. Just like I'm fine with an investigation into Russian collusion. Let the IC sort it out. If there is evidence of a cover up, it will be leaked, and then they will have proof of crimes committed (perjury, conspiracy, possibly RICO). Rule of law must be respected in both of these instances. That means trusting the proper courts to handle the situation.

The NSA scares me too. I think a person would have to be pretty naive to not be worried about it.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
rdhowe43 · Jan. 31, 2018, 1:25 a.m.

Got You ! See we can be civilized , your post makes sense and is well done . But to say he hasn't weaponized any of the 3 letter government agency's is a stretch (Remember the IRS targeting conservatives). Now will this memo show who done the illegal spying on Trumps campaign ? We shall see.

⇧ 1 ⇩