What if Russiagate is the New WMDs?

Democrats, certain in their accusations of guilt, sound a lot like Republicans in 2002.

Credit: C-Span/BookTV/YouTube Screenshot

“The evidence against Trump and Russia is huge and mounting every day,” declared liberal celebrity activist Rosie O’Donnell at a protest in front of the White House last week. “We see it, he can’t lie about it,” she added. “He is going down and so will all of his administration.”

“The charge is treason,” O’Donnell declared. Protesters held held large letters that spelled it out: “T-R-E-A-S-O-N.”

O’Donnell is by no means alone in her sentiments. Trump’s guilt in “Russiagate” is now assumed by much of the American left, and reaches greater levels of fervor with every passing day.

This kind of partisan religiosity is not new.

In the wake of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, conservative pundit Ann Coulter accused war opponents of “treason” and insisted of Saddam Hussein, “We know he had weapons of mass destruction.”

Coulter was confident and she wasn’t alone. Virtually the entire mainstream American right—from pundits like Coulter and Sean Hannity to President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress—was deeply invested in the notion that Hussein possessed WMDs and that the Iraq war was justified based on that unshakeable premise. This belief was so ingrained for so long that many excitedly rushed to pretend that chemical weapons discovered in Iraq as reported by the New York Times in 2014 were somehow the same thing as the “mushroom cloud” the Bush administration said Saddam was capable of.

Unfortunately for the right (and America, and the world), that premise turned out to be false. There were no WMDs. Today, only a minority of delusional, face-saving hawks and unreconstructed neoconservatives still parrot that lie.

And far from being “traitors,” Iraq war opponents today are considered to have been on the right side of history.

Now, “Russian collusion” could be becoming the new WMDs.

The post-2016 left’s most dominant narrative is arguably their deeply held belief—with all the ferocity and piety of yesterday’s pro-war conservatives—that Russia colluded with Trump’s campaign to undermine the presidential election. Many believe that the president and anyone who supports his diplomatic efforts like Senator Rand Paul are in the pocket of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“I will meet not just with our friends, but with our enemies,” said Barack Obama in 2008, and he did just that with Putin, as has every other president in recent times.

But Trump-Russia relations have been spun into far-fetched conspiracy theories on the left. New York Magazine’s Jonathan Chait recently went so far as to speculate that Trump has been a Russian agent since 1987, a cockamamie idea on par with the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes’ discredited conspiracy theory that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in cahoots.

It really was plausible that Iraq had WMDs in 2003 based on what our intelligence agencies knew, or purported to know. Today, it is feasible that American democracy really has Putin’s fingerprints on it based on things revealed by U.S. intelligence.

But isn’t it also possible that the left is reading far too much into Russiagate?

The Nation’s Aaron Maté believes liberals are overreaching, and that’s putting it mildly:

From the outset, Russiagate proponents have exhibited a blind faith in the unverified claims of US government officials and other sources, most of them unnamed. The reaction to special counsel Robert Mueller’s recent indictment of 12 Russian military-intelligence officers for hacking of Democratic party servers and voter databases is no exception. Mueller’s indictment is certainly detailed. Most significantly, it marks the first time anyone has been charged for offenses related to Russiagate’s underlying crime.

But while it is a major step forward in the investigation, we have yet to see the basis for the allegations that Mueller has lodged. As with any criminal case, from a petty offense to a cybercrime charge against a foreign government, a verdict cannot be formed in the absence of this evidence.

Then the irony kicks in. Maté continues, “The record of US intelligence, replete with lies and errors, underscores the need for caution. Mueller was a player in one of this century’s most disastrous follies when, in congressional testimony, he endorsed claims about Iraqi WMDs and warned that Saddam Hussein ‘may supply’ chemical and biological material to ‘terrorists.’”

Noting Mueller’s 2003 WMD testimony is not an attempt to undermine him or his investigation, something Maté also makes clear. But it does serve as an important reminder that “intelligence” can be flat-out wrong. It reminds us how these scenarios, which so much of Washington and the elite class fully endorse, can be looked back on as lapses of reason years later.

Mass psychology is real. Political classes and parties are not immune.

“Suppose, however, that all of the claims about Russian meddling turn out to be true,” Maté asks. “Hacking e-mails and voter databases is certainly a crime, and seeking to influence another country’s election can never be justified.”

He continues, “But the procession of elite voices falling over themselves to declare that stealing e-mails and running juvenile social-media ads amount to an ‘attack,’ even an ‘act of war,’ are escalating a panic when a sober assessment is what is most needed.”

The U.S. could have certainly used less hyperbole and more sobriety in 2002 and 2003.

And there’s good chance that when the history books are written about American politics circa 2018, much of Russiagate will be dismissed as more Red Scare than Red Dawn.

With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security concerns to the level of existential threat based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind of thinking has already proven to be dangerous.

We don’t know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come forth, but it’s easy to see how, even if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of fact, but political identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history.

No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially damaging information about Trump and Russia that may yet emerge.

Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans’ Iraq fantasy.

Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with Senator Rand Paul.

Hide 76 comments

76 Responses to What if Russiagate is the New WMDs?

← Older Comments
  1. Wayne Lusvardi says:

    Hunter’s conflation of the Mueller Inquisition with the Iraq War Weapons of Mass Destruction is a non sequitur. One involved a justification of a war the other a non-justification of a president. Psychiatrists might call this a “loose association” – A thought disorder in which series of ideas are presented with loosely apparent or completely inapparent logical connections.

  2. Tomonthebeach says:

    I think this article creates a false metaphor. granted all lies are lies, but there is a huge difference between the false belief of Iraq WMDs and the as yet adjudicated belief that Trump is a Russian pawn (BTW, nobody I knew in Intel believed that as anything but political justification for an arbitrary act of war – worse, nobody in the administration cared what they thought).

    If Trump did not continue to behave like a Manchurian candidate on and almost daily basis, these accusations would have lost traction looong ago.

  3. Cynthia McLean says:

    I too am not sold on Russiagate.
    I’ve been amazed by how quickly accusations, allegations, suppositions, insinuations magically transform into FACT in the Democrat thought-world. Show me some proof! This applies as well to the poisoning of an ex-Russian spy and daughter in England, chemical warfare in Syria and the (US-backed) coup –regime change — in Ukraine. The US has a bad track record in justifying its militarism and enemies’ list.

  4. PintOrTwo says:

    Let’s not pretend that evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia does not exist.

    Roger Stone communicated with Grucifer2 and Assange of WikiLeaks to coordinate the release of hacked material at specific moments that would be most harmful to Ms Clinton / helpful to Trump. One can argue Stone had no idea Grucifer was a Russian agent, but that seems far-fetched given what we know about Papadopoulos and the many advisors that covertly communicated with Russians and knew in advance they had “dirt” (which Trump Jr loved).

    It’s up to a jury to decide whether this evidence is proof or not. We need to have the case presented in a competent way, unobstructed by the President and Congress. And the media.

    Keep in mind this is an on-going investigation. We shouldn’t have all the evidence and proof yet. Mueller would be foolish to show his hand early.

    ——-

    More evidence: at least 18 unmasked recordings, allied nations’ reports (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia), a wealth of lies told by Trump advisors at Senate confirmation hearings and on security clearance applications, Trump not releasing tax returns after both his sons publicly declared the Trump Organization receives the majority of its funding from Russia. Even impeding any investigation into Russian meddling in the elections – as Trump has done – is collusion. And the Steele’s memo too: as the former head of British intelligence’s Russia office he is a highly credible source of evidence for a jury and the public to consider.

  5. PintOrTwo says:

    Let’s not pretend that evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia does not exist.

    Roger Stone communicated with Grucifer2 and Assange of WikiLeaks to coordinate the release of hacked material at specific moments that would be most harmful to Ms Clinton / helpful to Trump. One can argue Stone had no idea Grucifer was a Russian agent, but that seems far-fetched given what we know about Papadopoulos and the many advisors that covertly communicated with Russians and those who knew in advance Russia had “dirt” (which Trump Jr loved).

    It’s up to a jury to decide whether this evidence is proof or not. We need to have the case presented in a competent way, unobstructed by the President and Congress. And the media.

    Keep in mind this is an on-going investigation. We shouldn’t have all the evidence yet. Mueller would be foolish to show his hand early.

    ——-

    More evidence: at least 18 unmasked recordings, allied nations’ reports (see The Guardian: British Spies Were the First to Spot Trump Team’s Link with Russia. Link is being treated as spam), a wealth of lies told by Trump advisors at Senate confirmation hearings and on security clearance applications, Trump not releasing tax returns after both his sons publicly declared the Trump Organization receives the majority of its funding from Russia. Even impeding any investigation into Russian meddling in the elections – as Trump has done – is collusion. And the Steele’s memo too: as the former head of British intelligence’s Russia office he is a highly credible source of evidence for a jury and the public to consider.

  6. EliteCommInc. says:

    Uhh, excuse me.

    I am not sure some of you have noticed —

    The president has thrown president Putin under the bus.

    He simply cannot walk away as if the intel report he signed onto as accurate doesn’t matter. And his sanctions against Russia have only increased signing onto the Skripal murder attempt.

    Hardly the behavior of a Manchurian stand in — even as ruse.

  7. PintOrTwo says:

    Let’s not pretend that evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia does not exist.

    Roger Stone communicated with Grucifer2 and Assange of WikiLeaks to coordinate the release of hacked material at specific moments that would be most harmful to Ms Clinton / helpful to Trump. One can argue Stone had no idea Grucifer was a Russian agent, but that seems far-fetched given what we know about Papadopoulos and the many advisors that covertly communicated with Russians and those who knew in advance Russia had “dirt” (which Trump Jr loved).

    It’s up to a jury to decide whether this evidence is proof or not. We need to have the case presented in a competent way, unobstructed by the President and Congress. And the media.

    Keep in mind this is an on-going investigation. We shouldn’t have all the evidence yet. Mueller would be foolish to show his hand early.

    ——-

    More evidence: at least 18 unmasked recordings, allied nations’ reports (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/british-spies-first-to-spot-trump-team-links-russia), a wealth of lies told by Trump advisors at Senate confirmation hearings and on security clearance applications, Trump not releasing tax returns after both his sons publicly declared the Trump Organization receives the majority of its funding from Russia. Even impeding any investigation into Russian meddling in the elections – as Trump has done – is collusion. And the Steele’s memo too: as the former head of British intelligence’s Russia office he is a highly credible source of evidence for a jury and the public to consider.

  8. Peter VE says:

    JonF: “Not a valid comparison. No one is proposing invading Russia.”
    How would most Americans view Russia conducting joint military exercises with Mexico 50 KM from the Rio Grande? We conduct joint military exercises in the Baltic States, and we have a documented history of invading countries all over the world, including Russia.

  9. MM says:

    Pint: “Let’s not pretend that evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia does not exist.”

    Apparently, nobody cares about collusion, however that’s defined, between the losing campaign and foreign governments, hostile and otherise. Not to mention the previous administration. Most of those facts HAVE come out, but of course, nobody holds losers to same standards as winners.

    I still see no reason to care about the current administration until all relevant facts have been released to the public…

  10. EliteCommInc. says:

    I think the article makes the case. And reinforcing the article are the comments There’s not shred of evidence that the president engaged in undermining the US electoral system — but nearly two years later here we are.

    Save the deception here is far more sinister of intent and import.

  11. MM says:

    EliteComm: “There’s not shred of evidence that the president engaged in undermining the US electoral system.”

    Just to hammer home the point that Trump isn’t the only one prone to conspiracy theories:

    https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wa3gpxn761/econTabReport.pdf

    “Do you think Russia tampered with vote tallies in order to get Donald Trump elected President?”

    Definitely/probably true:
    – 55% of Democrats
    – 31% of Independents
    – 13% of Republicans

    Well done… the press has done a bang-up job keeping the public informed.

  12. SA says:

    There was no collusion. Not one American could honestly believe that anymore. This has been completely politics. Trump won, he wasn’t supposed to win. Therefore, the political class he threatens the most made up a story. No one in our intelligence agencies EVER BELIEVED IT. It was never more than a made up story to trick you, and it worked.

    Those who continue to think someday, somewhere, some evidence will show up… are stupid. You are the victims of the biggest hoax in US history.

    There is no there, there, there never was even a there.

    Trump won get over it.

  13. JeffK says:

    Cohen pleads guilty to felonies and campaign finance violations, in collusion with a major unnamed federal candidate.

    Manafort found guilt 8/18 counts.

    I don’t have to look in my grand daughters diaper to know there’s a load there. And you don’t need to see (yet) what Mueller has to know that Trump and Don Jr are in serious doo doo.

    You can just smell it.

    Plus it’s reported Omarosa has over 200 Whitehouse tapes.

    About 80 days till the November election. How many more turds going to drop in the meantime?

  14. MM says:

    JeffK: “You can just smell it.”

    I smell a rambling old ideologue.

    Collusion… no mention of Russia and the 2016 election today.

    You lefties must be enjoying giving Trump the Clinton treatment, huh?

  15. JeffK says:

    @MM says:
    August 21, 2018 at 10:49 pm

    JeffK: “You can just smell it.” Yes I can.

    “I smell a rambling old ideologue.” This rambling old ideologue is still quite active. When I ride my 1994 XR600R dirt bike through some incredibly difficult woods and rock gardens not many younger guys can follow, let alone keep up.

    “Collusion… no mention of Russia and the 2016 election today.” To not acknowledge what is coming Trump’s way is whistling past the graveyard. All those sidebar conversations during the Manafort trial regarding Gates Testimony. Delayed sentencing of Mike Flynn and Gates because they are cooperating with Mueller’s ongoing investigation. Cohen saying he has info Mueller can use (Trump’s knowledge of emails before release? Cohen going to Prague to negotiate with the Russians for email release? Cohen working on Trump’s Moscow tower plans during the election?) The puzzler picture is getting clearer and clearer. Only the blind refuse to see.

    “You lefties must be enjoying giving Trump the Clinton treatment, huh?” Yes we are. Trump is an awful, despicable human being. His negative attributes are too long to list. Unqualified, ignorant, racist, bully, immoral, on and on….

    Even though he was elected via the electoral college, he lost the popular vote by 3+ million votes. He has consistently held the distinction of be the most disapproved of president in recent history. His support is tanking among all except the most rabid supporters. He has zero accomplishments except for a massive tax giveaway to the mega rich, and a SCOTUS judge.

    Was his election worth it, Mr Conservative ideologue? Will the stench of his presidency by worth a SCOTUS judge and a tax break you will undoubtedly benefit very little from? Wait until the brutally effective political ads start running after labor day. Corruption at all levels. Healthcare premiums increasing 25%+, deficit increased by $600B in 2019, children separated from their parents at the border. Too many to list. Those ads will resonate and be very effective because they will be true. Trumps own words will be used against him.

    I have been saying it for months. Trump is in the process of destroying The Republican brand for everybody except the True Believers. So yes, I am enjoying it. So long as the Cheeto Messiah doesn’t start a war to deflect, or the economy doesn’t start to tank due to his incompetence.

    Enjoy your short term victories at the expense of long term losses. November elections are coming. Trump will be gone someday. Hopefully soon. But the stench of his presidency will linger like the smell of dog doo doo tracked through every room of the house. It will take some thorough house cleaning to remove it.

  16. MM says:

    JeffK: “Yes we are.”

    Well, at least you admit to royal hypocrisy that’s come full circle over the past 20 years. I remember the “hunting of the president” and the “vast right-wing conspiracy” defense from the late 1990s quite vividly.

    Just remember to be consistent, or I’ll keep pointing out your factual and legal deficiencies, which are numerous.

    And you can keep bringing up the popular vote all you want, and I’ll keep reminding sore losers that it’s constitutionally irrelevant, to quote Al Gore right before the 2000 election.

    You do know how you come across, don’t you? OT complaining or gloating, that’s pretty much all you post these days. If I agreed with you politically, I’d be embarrassed to admit it openly…

  17. MM says:

    JeffK: “Was his election worth it, Mr Conservative ideologue?”

    You ought to ask the losing candidate and the losing political party that question, which spent the entire campaign lying to the public and fixing primaries. They just didn’t fix the general election well enough, it seems.

    It wouldn’t have mattered if I did vote for Trump, incidentally. Not even if I convinced 4 million friends to vote for Trump, Clinton would still have won California. You see, I understand how the Constitution works.

    You can personalize politics all you want, that’s fine, whatever you need to do to keep your blood pressure down, I really don’t care.

    Oh, and by the way, I’m still waiting for you to make an accruate political prediction about the future. The last couple you’ve made did not bear any fruit.

    If you still show your face around here after the midterm elections, I’ll be calling you out for more inaccruate predictions, if those don’t come to pass.

  18. JeffK says:

    Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ. After almost 8 years of Ken Starr. Whitewater, travel office, Vince Foster, filegate, and on and on. I remember the right wing hysteria during that time. And I remember 8 years of racist memes sent by email during Obama’s presidency. And let’s not forget Trumps pushing the ‘birther’ lunacy.

    We’ve gone way past a BJ when it comes to Trump. Cohen just yesterday implicated him on a felony. Let’s see what Mueller comes up with after 18 months or so of investigations.

    I offer mea culpa’s on Trump in advance if he’s proven innocent of anything except trying to hide an affair from the public. But I suspect there’s a lot more to be seen.

    And I find it surprising you offer no defense of Trump the man as far as his suitability to serve as president. But he’s ‘your guy’, so none of his shortcomings as president, and a human being in general, matter.

    I predicted, and continue to predict, that the Trump presidency will not end well. Not for America. Not for The Republican party. Not for his family. And certainly not for him.

    You repeatedly complain about your vote not counting in California. Why not move to Mississippi or Alabama? You may feel much more aligned with the culture.

    https://www.npr.org/2016/06/12/481718785/clinton-scandals-a-guide-from-whitewater-to-the-clinton-foundation

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/yes-special-investigations-can-be-witch-hunts-the-mueller-probe-is-not-one/2018/07/15/9b8ad0f4-86b2-11e8-8589-5bb6b89e3772_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ddac64da6fa7

  19. MM says:

    JeffK: “Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about a BJ.”

    Thank you for first admitting to a royally hypocritical position, and now demonstrating your royally hypocritical position.

    20 years ago, guys like you, and Lanny Davis, interesting connection there with events in the present, were arguing that a sitting president who committed perjury and obstruction of justice while in office, should not be impeached, or prosecuted, or even investigated for that matter, because the crimes he committed were merely “about sex”. That was the extent of the defense to the best of my recollection.

    Flash-forward to today, and guys like you are arguing that candidate Trump, before he was president, when nobody thought he’d ever be president, should be ruthlessly investigated, impeached, and prosecuted because he paid hush money to women he had affairs with, which allegedly violates some campaign finance law, I’m still looking for the statute on that one.

    Do you see the irony in all that? Do you have a self-conscious bone in your entire body?

    Remember, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m just looking for some logic and consistency from progressives like you who claim a monopoly on reason, and routinely demonstrate the exact opposite.

    “You repeatedly complain about your vote not counting in California.”

    No, I haven’t complained about gerrymandering. That’s a Democratic trope to explain why they lose elections, along with Russian bots and anything else they can think of. I’m quite content where I live, for reasons that have nothing to do with bad Democratic governance and the nation’s highest poverty rate.

    “I predicted, and continue to predict, that the Trump presidency will not end well.”

    When and how? Exact date and reason, please.

    Sorry to insist, but you tend to avoid precise details.

  20. MM says:

    JeffK: “Why not move to Mississippi or Alabama?”

    Yep, nothing says peace, love, and tolerance than when progressives express absolute contempt for their fellow citizens in other states and regions, merely because they don’t goose-step behind a doctinaire set of absolutist policies.

    Out here in California, again the most progressive state + poorest in the entire country, the Sacramento, Bay Area, and Los Angeles politicians routinely deride those somewhat red, somewhat rural areas that don’t “vote the right way.” These regions also produce some of the nation’s most valuable agriculture, which those same nasty politicians take credit for.

    You guys are unbelievable sometimes, but I’m certain the sentiment is genuine…

  21. JeffK says:

    @ MM says:
    August 22, 2018 at 11:41 pm
    “No, I haven’t complained about gerrymandering….” I didn’t say your were complaining about gerrymandering, so you bringing it up is a logical fallacy – Strawman. You complain that 4 million people, or something like that, vote Democrat in CA and not Republican. So your vote doesn’t count from an electoral college perspective. If it bothers you so much, take Sam Kinison’s advice regarding living in a desert during a famine, and “MOVE!”.

    “I predicted, and continue to predict, that the Trump presidency will not end well.”… “When and how? Exact date and reason, please. Sorry to insist, but you tend to avoid precise details. ” – Why predict a date and time? To give you another bit of minutia to focus on, instead of acknowledging the general direction of where Trump’s presidency is going? Taking a minor point and spinning it up as if it’s overwhelmingly important is another logical fallacy debate technique. My kid grew out of that technique when he was in jr high (“You told me to clean my room – I had football practice” – and the room isn’t clean a week later).

    I challenged you to stick up for the man, President Trump, as being anything other than an awful, disgusting human being who is unfit for the presidency. You chose not to, and instead challenged me to gaze into my crystal ball to give you the exact date/reason for his removal or resignation.

    I really don’t understand your response mechanism to challenges. Hysteria and hyperbole glued together with logical fallacy debate techniques and ad hominin attacks .

    Your refuse to acknowledge this deeply troubled and unfit president is in serious trouble. And it isn’t a Democratic conspiracy that got him there. It’s his unfitness for office, which you refuse to address. Instead you keep going back to process (the electoral college) to justify Trump. 77,000 Different votes, spread across 3 states, and Trump would be a footnote to history. Instead he’s destroying the brand of The Republican Party (which you also refuse to acknowledge), and doing significant harm to the country.

    I believe reincarnation may actually be real. If so, I suspect you were the captain of The Titanic. Iceberg, what iceberg? The skies look clear and blue to me.

    And, on a more satisfying note, back to making money so I can retire soon and enjoy my $2700/month SS check while you slave for your elite Republican masters ….

  22. MM says:

    JeffK: “You complain that 4 million people, or something like that.”

    I see you completely missed my point, so I won’t bother to repeat it.

    “Why predict a date and time?”

    Got it. You don’t actually make intelligent predictions. You just speculate randomly, throwing everything you can think of against the wall and hope that one or two come true years from now, huh? Where I come from, that makes you no better than a fortune teller who isn’t worth my time or my dime.

    “I challenged you to stick up for the man, President Trump.”

    As I said, I never voted for him, nor am I obligated to defend his actions, words, or policies. You can demand all you want, I really don’t care.

    I’m afraid you’ll be unable to quote me anywhere defending the current president, except to speak up for his civil rights, which I would do for any other American.

    By the way, I’m still waiting for you to clarify your royal hypocrisy on the issue of Clinton vs. Trump and impeachment for having affairs.

    “Your refuse to acknowledge this deeply troubled and unfit president is in serious trouble.”

    Heaven forbid that we all don’t goose-step behind your unqualified opinions… Most Americans don’t even agree with you on that, incidentally.

    “Instead you keep going back to process to justify Trump. 77,000 Different votes, spread across 3 states, and Trump would be a footnote to history.”

    Yes, unlike you, I accept the U.S. Constitution and the electoral process it established. And the winning candidate won by 77 electoral votes and a net 750,000 in the battleground states, where presidents are chosen.

    You know, for a guy who tells me to quit complaining and move, you do an awful lot of complaining about the U.S. Constitution.

    If I were like you, I might suggest that YOU MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AND QUIT COMPLAINING. Because, you know, you come across as someone who wants the rules of the game changed merely because you lost.

    “So I can retire soon and enjoy my $2700/month SS check.”

    At least be honest for once, and admit that only $500 of that check is truly yours. That’s all you’ve ever paid in to Social Security, by your own admission. Young working folks, conservative and liberal, will be subsidizing the rest of it, which you’ve admitted you don’t need.

    By that way, JeffK, how much extra have you sent the Treasury today?

    https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

    🙂

  23. JeffK says:

    @MM
    “Where I come from, that makes you no better than a fortune teller who isn’t worth my time or my dime. – For not being worth your time you sure take the bait. Triggering you is like calling my dog when he knows I have a treat in my hand. Totally predictable how he’s going to react. He comes running.

    “I’m afraid you’ll be unable to quote me anywhere defending the current president, except to speak up for his civil rights, which I would do for any other American.” – More over the top hyperbole. Nobody is threatening The Dear Leaders civil rights, unlike him and his cohorts that chant “Lock her up! Lock her up!” at every campaign rally.

    As far as complaining about the constitution, it’s close to a perfect document. Do I like how the Electoral College was responsible for electing a grossly unfit humanoid for president? No. But nobody is totally useless. Trump and his presidency can be held up as a perfect bad example of why it’s important to get out and vote. When Trump is gone, hopefully soon, I suspect his cult will return to whatever they did in the past. The Democrats, however, will probably be energized for a generation.

  24. MM says:

    JeffK: “For not being worth your time you sure take the bait.”

    So you admit you make up stuff just to get a reaction, huh?

    That’s probably as close as we’ll get to an admission of dishonesty from you, but I’m glad you finally put that on the record.

    Your predictions and sophomoric arguments aren’t worth my time. But I positively enjoy calling out rank hypocrisy from you guys on the left.

    You make it so easy to spot. 🙂

    Just look at this exchange. Nary a direct answer or logical explanation to be found in anything you’ve said.

    Keep complaining about the election, and I’ll keep reminding you that if you don’t like the U.S. Constitution, take your own advice and move abroad.

    Keep complaining that we don’t pay enough in taxes, and I’ll keep reminding you to put your money where your mouth is and send another check to the U.S. Treasury.

    Always a pleasure… I enjoy these critical thinking exercises.

  25. JeffK says:

    @MM says:
    August 24, 2018 at 9:55 am

    JeffK: “For not being worth your time you sure take the bait.”

    “So you admit you make up stuff just to get a reaction, huh?”

    Making stuff up? You provide no evidence of that.

    You trigger on the self-evident truth that I constantly put in your face. Which is that Trump is an awful, disgusting human being, unfit for the presidency of the the greatest country in history. And the fact that quite possibly he will soon be removed (or resign) from said presidency. Which you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge may be true.

  26. MM says:

    JeffK: “You trigger on the self-evident truth that I constantly put in your face… And the fact that quite possibly he will soon be removed from said presidency. Which you repeatedly refuse to acknowledge may be true.”

    Like any old rambling ideologue, you conflate fact, opinion, and truth together.

    Sorry, pops, I’m not obligated to accept your opinions as fact when they’re not, and I’m certainly not obligated to accept things as true just because you believe them.

    You need to get over yourself. This is a free country where nobody is required to do what you tell them. You can act like a little intellectual dictator all you want, but you won’t get an emotional reaction from me. What you call triggering is me dismissing your rubbish.

    TAC is no left-wing echo chamber, despite attempts by you and others to drive out sane people who disagree with you.

    We can debate the legal and logical problems you’re going to have impeaching and removing Trump for an alleged civil campaign finance violation, but not today. I’m going to be enjoying my weekend, starting right… now!

← Older Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *