• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What the Hell is Obamagate?

Outlook said:
That’s right you have no clue because CNN doesn’t report anything negative against the democrats.

I’ll help you out, read the testimony of the witnesses that testify under oath in the Mueller investigation.
The left got it wrong yet again. For three years and 30 million dollars the left talked about Trump Russia collusion but in fact testimony confirms the traitors were Obama and the puppets that supported him. They were Putin’s puppets, Russian agents.
Click to expand...

Or because it's not actually news, just a conspiracy theory. News stations don't waste much time reporting on conspiracy theories.
There's no DOJ investigation, no hearings - nothing actually happening, is there? It's just Trump making remarks at press conference whenever he starts to feel the heat over one or another of his own mistakes.
 
bubbabgone said:
Running a political operation against an opponent using Government functionaries. You can call it Abuse of Power for short.
As for evidence, haven't you been reading the news?
Click to expand...

Trump refused to explain the 'Obamagate' conspiracy he keeps promoting, saying it is 'very obvious to everybody' | Business Insider

“If you look at what’s gone on and you look at now, all this information that’s being released, and from what I understand that’s only the beginning,” the president continued.

“Some terrible things happened and it should never be allowed to happen in our country again. And you’ll be seeing what’s going on over the coming weeks. And I wish you’d write honestly about it but unfortunately you choose not to do so.”

When pressed on the question again, Trump responded: “You know what the crime is. The crime is very obvious to everybody.”

He added that “all you have to do is read the newspapers.”
Click to expand...

The formula is quite simple because we've seen this with other Trump-generated 'scandals'. All he has to do is quip, 'By the way when you look at what happened with so and so' and his internet minions will get to work crafting a narrative around it.

The trigger words are 'look at what happened'. There isn't any 'what' yet, it's just a knee-jerk deflection. But then the fanboys take it upon themselves to go and create this 'what' that allegedly 'happened'.

They can mine some old conspiracy theories (illegal wiretaps!) or create some new ones and yap on about it for pages and pages. Throw in Jacob Wohl or some other clown to fabricate some evidence, produce a 'witness' or hold a press conference and presto, instant scandal.
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
You are REALLY detached from reality.

To help pull you back to reality, the pedophile was a Democrat.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that guy!

09dc-trumpspstein1-superJumbo-v2.jpg
 
uptower said:
Half a point if you can explain; 10 points with evidence

Waddafukizit?
Click to expand...

Most recent term? Not sure. Its been said many times before. Clearly its just standard partisan hyperbole both sides like to make up, like when Dems called Trumps handling of coronacirus a war crime. Its best to just ignore such things.

Obamagate timeline 2009-2014 - Conservapedia

Seven large scale scandals have tainted the Obama legacy:

Misuse of the IRS targeting political opponents;
Operation Fast and Furious illegal arms selling;
Uranium One bribery scandal;
Benghazi massacre;
Squashing Iranian drug trafficking investigations to gain the Iranian nuke deal;
Obstruction of justice in the Clinton email whitewash;
Russia collusion hoax.
Click to expand...

What does my 10 points get me?
 
Last edited:
Conservapedia

I think they're Poeing.

:lol:
 
jonny5 said:
Most recent term? Not sure. Its been said many times before



What does my 10 points get me?
Click to expand...

Isn’t your own source a bit biased?

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative and fundamentalist Christian point of view. The website was established in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of the conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly, to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias in Wikipedia. It uses editorials and a wiki-based system for content generation.
Click to expand...

Conservapedia - Wikipedia
 
jonny5 said:
Sure, but the term and the question is biased and were in a biased forum.
Click to expand...

As a historian, I tend to take biased sources with a grain of salt.

Normally I would like to have a objective examination of evidence with no particular bias one way or the other.
 
uptower said:
Trump refused to explain the 'Obamagate' conspiracy he keeps promoting, saying it is 'very obvious to everybody' | Business Insider



The formula is quite simple because we've seen this with other Trump-generated 'scandals'. All he has to do is quip, 'By the way when you look at what happened with so and so' and his internet minions will get to work crafting a narrative around it.

The trigger words are 'look at what happened'. There isn't any 'what' yet, it's just a knee-jerk deflection. But then the fanboys take it upon themselves to go and create this 'what' that allegedly 'happened'.

They can mine some old conspiracy theories (illegal wiretaps!) or create some new ones and yap on about it for pages and pages. Throw in Jacob Wohl or some other clown to fabricate some evidence, produce a 'witness' or hold a press conference and presto, instant scandal.
Click to expand...

Right. It is becoming very obvious. But you do have to have read the news. Have you?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
As a historian, I tend to take biased sources with a grain of salt.

Normally I would like to have a objective examination of evidence with no particular bias one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Youre on the wrong forum then! Biased topic gets biased answers.
 
jonny5 said:
Wouldnt that POLing? Is this some slight Im supposed to have heard of?
Click to expand...

Poe's Law. Some internet thing. It says, "can't tell the difference between an extremist and a faker." That's because the extreme is so absurd, who can tell if it's a joke. That became calling someone, whom we can't tell, a Poe and such behavior Poeing.
 
bubbabgone said:
Right. It is becoming very obvious. But you do have to have read the news. Have you?
Click to expand...

Yes, though I'm not sure which specific article you're referring to. Nothing seems to have changed since the Mueller probe ended despite some transcripts being released. What's the specific charge against Obama?
 
uptower said:
Or because it's not actually news, just a conspiracy theory. News stations don't waste much time reporting on conspiracy theories.
There's no DOJ investigation, no hearings - nothing actually happening, is there? It's just Trump making remarks at press conference whenever he starts to feel the heat over one or another of his own mistakes.
Click to expand...

Right
Testimony before Congress under oath is a democrat view of a Republican conspiracy theory. LOL
 
uptower said:
Yes, though I'm not sure which specific article you're referring to. Nothing seems to have changed since the Mueller probe ended despite some transcripts being released. What's the specific charge against Obama?
Click to expand...
I mentioned the "charge" in #22. Abuse of power doesn't have to be a crime.
Can you explain why Obama knew about FBI's Flynn investigation while Yates & Lynch (Deputy AG & AG in the DOJ) testified they didn't know about it?
 
What the Hell is Obamagate?
Click to expand...

it's Tweetyist deflection alt-history. i wouldn't waste time on it unless i was really bored and felt like mocking it for fun.
 
bubbabgone said:
I mentioned the "charge" in #22. Abuse of power doesn't have to be a crime.
Can you explain why Obama knew about FBI's Flynn investigation while Yates & Lynch (Deputy AG & AG in the DOJ) testified they didn't know about it?
Click to expand...

I have no idea if that's true or why if so. Frankly I am not here to litigate anyone's 'innocence or guilt' based on the internet's interpretations of the released transcripts or other testimony. The minutiae of the case do not interest me.

But I'm telling you, no formal charges will be brought. This is not for real - it's just grandstanding ahead of the election and deflection because Trump's had a bad month.
 
Higgins86 said:
I mean it didn't the report was extremely damming. As you clearly didn't read it below are the key findings

Key Findings of the Mueller Report | ACS
Click to expand...

The findings as stated by the lying, biased, hatchet wielding, partisan hacks are what they are and should be consumed noting the weight the lack.

Nothing happened before the investigation started and nothing was found after the investigation was concluded.

The corrupt investigators were empowered by crooks to undermine a sitting President.

We KNOW with certainty what they did and why. All we are waiting on now is the exposure of how high the office was that sent out the orders to proceed.

 
uptower said:
I have no idea if that's true or why if so. Frankly I am not here to litigate anyone's 'innocence or guilt' based on the internet's interpretations of the released transcripts or other testimony. The minutiae of the case do not interest me.

But I'm telling you, no formal charges will be brought. This is not for real - it's just grandstanding ahead of the election and deflection because Trump's had a bad month.
Click to expand...

1) I already said that abuse of power is not always a crime so it's very possible no charges will be brought ... for that. But some things are crimes.
2) It's not an internet interpretation of the transcripts, it's the words of Yates and Lynch in the transcript of their testimonies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom