The debate "Trump just admitted to collusion with the Russians" was started by
August 5, 2018, 4:40 pm.
23 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
historybuff posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
historybuff, tenyiyi, SaffronSHAM3, WhiteCaller, YEET and 18 visitors agree.
MrShine, Aaronr12, Debater1127, mrcontro and 12 visitors disagree.
"frankly collusion was a poor choice of label for the media to latch onto."
its interesting you say that. to my knowledge, the only media using the word collusion is right wing fox, breitbart, etc. I might be wrong, but if I'm not, this goes to show just how effective the right wing media is.
yes collusion isnt the issue, the people one is colluding with raises suspicion. but the actual crime is colluding to commit conspiracy against the United states.
and yes most people would agree colluding with an enemy is worse, but "ally" isnt always friend. and any collusion with foreign entities is technically illegal (unless it was patriotic).
I think we should make a distinction between friendly nations Europe, Canada and such nations that we know would not normally screw us and just allies like Turkey that we arent exactly going to look blindly at. not that we should be 100% blind about our friends either, but it would clarify the counter narrative.
frankly collusion was a poor choice of label for the media to latch onto. if you are arranging a surprise party, you are colluding.
but in my understanding the issue was never that he was calluding with someone, it was who he was calluding with. I think anyone would agree that colliding with your friends to arrange a surprise party is fine. I would hope the majority of people would think colluding with Americas enemies to undermine your opponents is unacceptable. especially if you know that they are committed crimes to help you.
is the definition of collusion a hostile power or a foreign power? I'm pretty sure it's any foreign influence that is discouraged. and I'm not sure if it being governmental is the concern. I know john oliver made fun of canada for having a law against any non Canadian person of doing anything to influence their campaigns in anyway.
I think 2 issues are that the dossier looked for specific dirt on national security concerns while trump was just looking for anything dirty. and that the information, however it was attained, was handed over to the FBI and even tho it would have helpful to the campaign, it was also a major national security concern.
I believe the information didnt even come to the public until after the campaign ended.
do any of the three people who have voted against this want to explain how meeting with an agent of the Russian government in order to undermine a political rival isnt collusion? because that is pretty much the definition of collusion.
"secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy"
it was a secret conspiracy between the Russian government and the trump campaign (as represented by trump jr, Trump's son in law and Trump's campaign chairman). every part of that has now been admitted to by Trump. he also denied every part of that at one point.
as I understand it they paid an investigator. that investigator happened to be British. there are 2 main differences.
1) the British are not a hostile power. they are an ally.
2) the investigator was not an agent of British government. the Russians that trump jr met were agents of the Kremlin. he even says it in his emails prior to the meeting, if I remember correctly, proving he knew he was dealing with the Russian government.
one of the more interesting claims (cause I havent looked into it, it's the latest one) is that hillary openly colluded when it comes to the dossier. she worked with British agents to find dirt on a political opponent...
how would you respond to that claim? and is it not valid?
unfortunately, there is never a conflict where either side understands the other.
the details of his gibberish are overlooked because the counter argument is still perceived to be valid. whataboutism is a fallacy, but government double standard in a partisan way may be a valid exception (assuming there is credability to the claim)
the issue in their eyes is not trump, but hillary... despite her not being in any form of power, events, and the claims against her equivalent to conspiracy theory ramblings
it's sad that people hear him repeat a line (there was no collusion) dozens of times and when he admits that it was all a lie they don't care.
it doesn't matter. his base wont be phased by a single statement.... however the constant defensive repitition may put a sour taste in anyone's mouth.
if anything "collision isn't a crime" would be the line that would make some of them lose faith, but I've learned not to get my hopes up.
that is an admission that trump jr knowingly met with an agent of a hostile foreign government in order to undermine a political opponent. that is collusion with the Russians
Trump tweeted this morning.
"Fake News reporting, a complete fabrication, that I am concerned about the meeting my wonderful son, Donald, had in Trump Tower. This was a meeting to get information on an opponent"