|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 13 2017 02:46 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 02:41 Toadesstern wrote:On July 13 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes. Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely. If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond. As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles? I don't at all doubt that Russia, China, and other foreign countries direct their intelligence services to gather adverse information about prominent Americans and American politicians. And I'm sure that they no bones about using illicit/illegal methods to do so. There are really two issues here. The first is who got the information. The second is, of those who got the information, who released it. There could have been multiple parties who did both. The issue is that Trump was offered information by a foreign nation and went "yes please". Not really. If all you're looking for is a week's worth of headlines, that's the issue. If you're looking for something that sinks Trump, then you have to go deeper and get answers to the questions that I have been asking. I think deep down all but the conspiracy nuts know this is a media cycle win on campaign collusion and nothing more. Trump Jr met with someone believed to have oppo from a rival government source, got burned when she was just a random Russia lawyer lobbying for legislation, then double burned by no pre-written message discipline if and when this story got out. The historically-unprecedented nuts need to read up on Clinton & the Chinese campaign donations. The more grounded pundits can argue this will turn more Democrats into vocal supporters of impeachment proceedings, and they may be right. The usual suspects will go "Treason" and "this explains everything!" And shoot themselves in the foot once again. the problem with that is your willingness to give him the benefit of doubt. First it was "yeah this russia thing is big in the media but let's not try and portray the worst case scenario. Obviously there is nothing to be had and not a single person in the trump team met with anyone"spiraling trough "well yeah maybe manafort is fucked but surely none of the Trumps did that" leaving us at "well yeah, she claimed to be in contact with the russian government and that her information is from the russian government but Russia claims that's not true. So maybe we should sit back for a second and not try to portray this as as bad as possible. Maybe what Russia claims is true!" currently. I'm just wondering when giving him that benefit stops. I am aware that from a legal point of view or what's actually going to happen that's not a bad thing and I would want people to require proof but as some random guy on an internet forum? And I'm not necessarily talking about just you. Just how everyone's going "well OBVIOUSLY this isn't what it looks like" for the 10th time in a row now with the most as-a-matter-of-fact attitude ever. I feel like when a member of the Trump campaign does get arrested, they will still claim liberals, democrats, and all others are out to get them, that the narrative is false, and we're all the out of touch with reality. It's a never ending vicious cycle with Trump supporters. If they haven't changed yet, they aren't going to change because people just do not like to be wrong.
They already did that. Flynn got burned to the point he stepped down and he's a martyr for them. Anyone else who does will become a martyr too. Anything to keep the ability to make liberals sad and keep their own brains from realizing that they're doing backflips to help a moron who is tanking vast swaths of their agenda and retreating from half his campaign promises while pitching half-complete non-plans like the infrastructure one.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 13 2017 02:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes. Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely. If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond. As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles? I don't at all doubt that Russia, China, and other foreign countries direct their intelligence services to gather adverse information about prominent Americans and American politicians. And I'm sure that they no bones about using illicit/illegal methods to do so. There are really two issues here. The first is who got the information. The second is, of those who got the information, who released it. There could have been multiple parties who did both. The issue is that Trump was offered information by a foreign nation and went "yes please". Not really. If all you're looking for is a week's worth of headlines, that's the issue. If you're looking for something that sinks Trump, then you have to go deeper and get answers to the questions that I have been asking. I think deep down all but the conspiracy nuts know this is a media cycle win on campaign collusion and nothing more. Trump Jr met with someone believed to have oppo from a rival government source, got burned when she was just a random Russia lawyer lobbying for legislation, then double burned by no pre-written message discipline if and when this story got out. The historically-unprecedented nuts need to read up on Clinton & the Chinese campaign donations. The more grounded pundits can argue this will turn more Democrats into vocal supporters of impeachment proceedings, and they may be right. The usual suspects will go "Treason" and "this explains everything!" And shoot themselves in the foot once again. The problem, as it always has been when talking about Trump's alleged Russian ties or his alleged obstruction of justice by firing Comey, is that there are too many people who are foolish enough scream from the mountaintops "WE GOT HIM" without understanding either the evidence or the law. The amount of premature load blowing has been astounding.
They're no longer alleged. The Trump campaign has documents discussing the Russian government's support of the Trump campaign. At a certain point even you have to admit that. Or do you think the Trump campaign was wrong about the Russian government support that they believed they had?
|
On July 13 2017 02:34 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, every time one of these happens you retreat and retrench. You're now at the point where you're conceding that it's "campaign collusion, and nothing more". That's a hell of a lot more than you previously admitted to. You're a long way over your previous "nothing mores" and yet you never seem to reach "something more".
I think it's pretty fair to say at this point that there isn't anything that would come to light that you wouldn't qualify in those terms. If it emerges that an offer of sanctions relief for help in the campaign had been made you'll just be saying "it's treason, and nothing more".
Oh his campaign staffers and family have exceeded what I thought were their limits of unethical behavior time and time again. But since we're on the "you always do this" framing, you always neglect the details to write narratives. I think it's pretty fair to say it'll be decades before you can look back and put these things into proper context, probably helped by forgetfulness at your own shifting responses as time goes on.
|
On July 13 2017 02:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 02:39 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:23 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes. Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely. If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond. As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles? I don't at all doubt that Russia, China, and other foreign countries direct their intelligence services to gather adverse information about prominent Americans and American politicians. And I'm sure that they no bones about using illicit/illegal methods to do so. There are really two issues here. The first is who got the information. The second is, of those who got the information, who released it. There could have been multiple parties who did both. The issue is that Trump was offered information by a foreign nation and went "yes please". Not really. If all you're looking for is a week's worth of headlines, that's the issue. If you're looking for something that sinks Trump, then you have to go deeper and get answers to the questions that I have been asking. Deeper than Trump and his team actively undermining the democratic process by seeking help from a foreign nation - something strictly forbidden? Like I've asked before, what specifically did Trump and his campaign do that was illegal? What information was solicited, received, and used? What role did his campaign have in the acquisition and dissemination of that information? Y'all need to stop loosely throwing around terms like "collusion" and "conspiracy" without understanding what they actually mean, and in particular, how they fit into codified terms of illegal conduct. As we saw with the Comey firing after asking for a pledge of loyalty and saying he hoped Comey would see fit to drop the investigation if he wanted to keep his job, you subscribe very heavily to the view that if the President does it then it's not illegal. The fact remains that they took a meeting where they now admit that sanctions were discussed (the Russian adoption issue was a tit-for-tat response to the Magnitsky sanctions as those who claim this was nothing more than adoption discussions fail to mention, through dishonesty or ignorance) because they believed that the Russian government had information that was damaging to Clinton which would be proffered in exchange at the meeting regarding sanctions. When you're retreating to "yeah, but show me where it's written down that they can't do that" then you're somewhat missing the point.
We are approaching R. Kelly jury selection levels of credulity on the Trump-Spinning team.
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/5uemlz/chappelle-s-show-celebrity-trial-jury-selection---uncensored
|
On July 13 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:
How can you keep swallowing the lies DJT feeds you? I know you want to spin for him, but come on. DJT out and out lied about the contents of that meeting on Saturday. Then on Tuesday you are ready to believe him when he says nothing came of it? (DJT is speaking through DonJR and Hannity) How many more times are you going to get left holding the bags after the lies are dispelled? At what point do you get a sense of skepticism about the latest lies about what went down in that meeting?
I'm not swallowing anything from Trump. In fact, I'm one of the few people not swallowing anything from anyone.
|
On July 13 2017 02:41 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes. Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely. If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond. As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles? I don't at all doubt that Russia, China, and other foreign countries direct their intelligence services to gather adverse information about prominent Americans and American politicians. And I'm sure that they no bones about using illicit/illegal methods to do so. There are really two issues here. The first is who got the information. The second is, of those who got the information, who released it. There could have been multiple parties who did both. The issue is that Trump was offered information by a foreign nation and went "yes please". Not really. If all you're looking for is a week's worth of headlines, that's the issue. If you're looking for something that sinks Trump, then you have to go deeper and get answers to the questions that I have been asking. I think deep down all but the conspiracy nuts know this is a media cycle win on campaign collusion and nothing more. Trump Jr met with someone believed to have oppo from a rival government source, got burned when she was just a random Russia lawyer lobbying for legislation, then double burned by no pre-written message discipline if and when this story got out. The historically-unprecedented nuts need to read up on Clinton & the Chinese campaign donations. The more grounded pundits can argue this will turn more Democrats into vocal supporters of impeachment proceedings, and they may be right. The usual suspects will go "Treason" and "this explains everything!" And shoot themselves in the foot once again. the problem with that is your willingness to give him the benefit of doubt. First it was "yeah this russia thing is big in the media but let's not try and portray the worst case scenario. Obviously there is nothing to be had and not a single person in the trump team met with anyone"spiraling trough "well yeah maybe manafort is fucked but surely none of the Trumps did that" leaving us at "well yeah, she claimed to be in contact with the russian government and that her information is from the russian government but Russia claims that's not true. So maybe we should sit back for a second and not try to portray this as as bad as possible. Maybe what Russia claims is true!" currently. I'm just wondering when giving him that benefit stops. I am aware that from a legal point of view or what's actually going to happen that's not a bad thing and I would want people to require proof but as some random guy on an internet forum? And I'm not necessarily talking about just you. Just how everyone's going "well OBVIOUSLY this isn't what it looks like" for the 10th time in a row now with the most as-a-matter-of-fact attitude ever.
First there was no proof and people like you prattled on and on about nothing, just like the media, making it obvious that you had nothing. The reaction was not only deserved but should've been obvious. You make it obvious that this is sore loser's syndrome and we part sympathize and part wish you would grow up.
You're obviously tangling up your storylines of what said what and who shifted their opinions. TeamLiquid's search feature is your ally. For your ongoing blatant mischaracterizations of what's being alleged, there is no easy cure. Have a cup of coffee, take a couple breaths, reread the post and try again with "leaving us at..." completed with something I actually said. These generalizations are just so off base it's pretty funny.
|
On July 13 2017 02:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 02:29 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:11 Gorsameth wrote:On July 13 2017 01:56 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:31 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 01:26 Mohdoo wrote:On July 13 2017 01:18 xDaunt wrote:
Let's just presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign something about the Hillary emails during that June 9, 2016 meeting. What would they have said? More specifically, what might they have said that was outside of the sphere of public knowledge at the time? My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't recall the Russians releasing any information about Hillary's emails. They only [arguably] released the DNC and Podesta emails. But let's further presume for a moment that the Russians told the Trump campaign that they had actually had all of Hillary's emails and even told Trump some of what was in there. Who's really compromised at this point? Hillary or Trump? I think it is fair to assume everything that came out of Wikileaks was at the very least indirectly related to Russia. I don't think that this can be presumed yet. Yeah, it's a possibility, but I think that it is also equally as likely that someone on the inside who was unaffiliated with Russia leaked the emails. This is particularly the case with the DNC server (Podesta seems more like a hacking job). And the part that really rubs me the wrong way with the DNC server leak is that the DNC still hasn't let the FBI do a forensic study of it. That fact alone speaks volumes. Podesta was a downright social engineering hacking job no two ways about it. If we know that Russia was trying to find ways to inject negative information about the DNC into American politics, most clearly through these meetings with Jr, I think we have a lot more reason to say it was Russia than anyone else. Intent, capability and even evidence of success have already been shown in one instance. I think it is strange to think Russia would have no interest in doing the things that you are saying are unknown at this point. Are you saying that if you had to bet, you would bet on Russia not being responsible? Or are you saying that you technically don't have reason to be certain of it? It feels like you are giving devil's advocate a little too much sway here. They already did a bunch and at the very least attempted to feed stuff to the Trump campaign. One of the world's best e-war powers not being involved in one of the more potent attacks against the DNC seems extremely unlikely. If I am getting a little too comfortable wearing a tinfoil hat: You could also wonder if China tried to impersonate Russian operatives once they realized Russia was already attacking the DNC. China should want Russia and the US getting along as poorly as possible while China continues to invest in Africa and beyond. As a side note: Am I correct in my belief that China directly benefits from US-Russia troubles? I don't at all doubt that Russia, China, and other foreign countries direct their intelligence services to gather adverse information about prominent Americans and American politicians. And I'm sure that they no bones about using illicit/illegal methods to do so. There are really two issues here. The first is who got the information. The second is, of those who got the information, who released it. There could have been multiple parties who did both. The issue is that Trump was offered information by a foreign nation and went "yes please". Not really. If all you're looking for is a week's worth of headlines, that's the issue. If you're looking for something that sinks Trump, then you have to go deeper and get answers to the questions that I have been asking. I think deep down all but the conspiracy nuts know this is a media cycle win on campaign collusion and nothing more. Trump Jr met with someone believed to have oppo from a rival government source, got burned when she was just a random Russia lawyer lobbying for legislation, then double burned by no pre-written message discipline if and when this story got out. The historically-unprecedented nuts need to read up on Clinton & the Chinese campaign donations. The more grounded pundits can argue this will turn more Democrats into vocal supporters of impeachment proceedings, and they may be right. The usual suspects will go "Treason" and "this explains everything!" And shoot themselves in the foot once again. You do know that the random Russian legislation they were talking about was put in place and would only be lifted because of changes in U.S. sanctions, right? It's not just a random law about adoption.
Umm I said random lawyer as in random lawyer. When I said lobbying for legislation, it was an actual act. So when I haven't said random law or random legislation, but the nature of the contact, do you want to reach a point here or actually ask a question?
|
and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
whatever there isn't proof of yet, let us all just be patient and wait for twitter wapo or the nyt to come out with it so we may have our next round of back pedaling, cries that the next set of proof isn't here yet or falls short of X and then again wait for the endless series of shoes to drop all the while claiming nothing's to see here.
man that's a lot of cliches. it wasn't even intentional. a real masterpiece that one. yikes.
|
On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote:
and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious.
If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
|
On July 13 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote:
and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious. If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess.
while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to.
i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will.
i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
|
On July 13 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:
How can you keep swallowing the lies DJT feeds you? I know you want to spin for him, but come on. DJT out and out lied about the contents of that meeting on Saturday. Then on Tuesday you are ready to believe him when he says nothing came of it? (DJT is speaking through DonJR and Hannity) How many more times are you going to get left holding the bags after the lies are dispelled? At what point do you get a sense of skepticism about the latest lies about what went down in that meeting? I'm not swallowing anything from Trump. In fact, I'm one of the few people not swallowing anything from anyone.
Well just because you refuse to accept information doesn't mean it isn't correct.
|
On July 13 2017 03:13 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote:
and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious. If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess. while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to. i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will. i don't know which set of lies you're referring to.
I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
|
United States41470 Posts
If the Trump campaign were a cheating husband his supporters would be the most gaslit crazy wife imaginable.
+ Show Spoiler [allusions to sex, not safe for Danglars] +Hey, who's this Russia lady who keeps calling you?No idea, never met her Sounds legit, probably just a wrong number.Why are there all these receipts from restaurants with Russia?Oh, that Russia. Yeah, just a business contact. I don't really know her. Sounds legit, business things, yep.Looks like you've got a lot of messages from Russia that you failed to mention.Oh, those, yeah, I don't know how those got there. Sounds legit, it's often hard to remember things.You never mentioned that Russia sent you nudes, that's unusual for a business contact, right?Yeah, no idea why she did that. You know her. She's crazy. Possibly Chinese. Possibly 8 years old. Cyber, amirite. Well I don't really know what cyber is but I trust you.Hey, so one of my friends saw your friend delivering flowers from you to RussiaOh, right, you mean Russia, I thought you meant someone else, yeah, that was like a month ago. Also he's like a bad friend. I'm actually mad at him that he did that because that's not the kind of thing friends do and it totally makes it look like something it's not. What a bad friend. You don't deserve people like that.Hey, so that bad friend, why were you hanging out with him recently and telling him what a good friend he was even when he was making it look like you had some kind of relationship with Russia?Oh, well the thing is once I found out he delivered those flowers to Russia I was so mad I didn't know what to do so I waited for months to think about what to do and then on the morning you found out about it I decided that I couldn't be friends with him anymore. Sounds legit, I'm just glad you were going to end it anyway and he's gone now.So my friend that noticed you and Russia were spending a lot of time together and told me about it is getting deported.Really, that's so weird. Probably just a coincidence. You're probably right.So I overheard you on the phone last night to someone called Russia, you said that you'd taken care of my friend and that nobody would be looking into your relationship with Russia anymore. Is there something I should know here?They were a bad friend, they were just trying to damage our relationship. Just jealous of how happy we are babe. I guess?Hey, so I found these plane tickets with your name and Russia's name on them for a vacation together last year. What's going on?Oh, great timing. You see just now I've decided that I'm going to come clean. Babe, I need you to know something. I went on a vacation with Russia last year. It would have been dishonest of me not to tell you so that's why I'm telling you this, right now, on the day you found the plane tickets. That's the kind of thing that makes you a high quality person.Another question, did you and Russia, like, do anything on your vacation together?Oh, no babe, no way. You see she told me that she was gonna put out if we went on a vacation but then I went and she was like totally lame and wouldn't even do like hand stuff. Total let down. I'd never cheat on you. That's good to know.Isn't it kinda weird though that the moment you got back from the vacation you were bragging about how you totally got laid?Nah, it was probably with you. Don't even worry about that. I don't remember that but I sure do trust you.
|
On July 13 2017 03:14 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:
How can you keep swallowing the lies DJT feeds you? I know you want to spin for him, but come on. DJT out and out lied about the contents of that meeting on Saturday. Then on Tuesday you are ready to believe him when he says nothing came of it? (DJT is speaking through DonJR and Hannity) How many more times are you going to get left holding the bags after the lies are dispelled? At what point do you get a sense of skepticism about the latest lies about what went down in that meeting? I'm not swallowing anything from Trump. In fact, I'm one of the few people not swallowing anything from anyone. Well just because you refuse to accept information doesn't mean it isn't correct.
What information am I not accepting? In my world, information means facts and does not include speculation. Here's the template for most every conversation that I've had with TL's leftist/liberal posters on this Trump stuff:
TL Leftist/Liberal: Trump did X, which is illegal!
xDaunt: What do you base that on?
TL Lefist/Liberal: Fuck you! You're a shill for Trump!
Frankly, y'all should be embarrassed about this. Y'all are making it way too easy on me and others to fuck with you.
|
On July 13 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 03:13 brian wrote:On July 13 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote:
and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious. If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess. while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to. i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will. i don't know which set of lies you're referring to. I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
i can't see how you can call proof coming in to a proof denier as shoe horning anything.
i guess we disagree on whose pants are on fire, that's ok.
i'm not standing here excusing anything. i'm pointing out you deny proof, proof comes, you say it's not proof enough, more proof comes, and we continue the cycle.
and for the sake of accuracy, perhaps i'm mistaken, but it was trump jr, not the man himself. right? which i tried to get accurate with 'DTJ', which admittedly isn't clear. but i'm lazy.
also i tried to snidely attack your 'people like you' phrasing in my last post but i guess point not quite made. please don't pigeon hole me into a bucket, as i've routinely refrained from doing to you. it's obnoxious.
i'd like to take this opportunity to also point out you've completely abandoned the argument we were having and seemlessly replaced it with generalizing how poor i've acted (when personally i don't believe i participated in much if any of the circle jerking.) that you've somehow managed to paint me as the one doing anything in bad faith is honestly just dizzying.
i shouldn't be surprised but i'm a little saddened.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 13 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 03:13 brian wrote:On July 13 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote:
and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious. If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess. while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to. i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will. i don't know which set of lies you're referring to. I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
If I understand this correctly, you're saying that although all the people who said that this was happening have been proven right, they had no way of knowing at the time they said it that they were going to be proven right and therefore said it without proof and therefore they were wrong when they said it, despite their subsequent vindication.
|
On July 13 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 03:13 brian wrote:On July 13 2017 03:08 Danglars wrote:On July 13 2017 03:03 brian wrote:
and people like you prattle on about how there's no proof even when the proof just continues to seemingly fall from the sky. but the reaction, deserved or not, surely is obvious. If you want to make a point involving changing storylines, you better screw your head on straight about no proof about Russian collusion for months despite plentiful leaks and assertions. Otherwise, you're post hoc ergo proctor hoc e.g. we finally have a campaign member seeking oppo no matter the source, so obviously this bullshit we pulled eight months ago is connected! So umm settle on the lie you like best I guess. while i generally can see how your perspective on a matter makes perfect sense from the other side, this does not. perhaps i just don't understand what you may be alluding to. i'm not going to indulge the argument that the baseless democratic cries of collusion aren't vindicated by DTJ outing themselves. your remarks regarding the source are odd; i mean, he copped to it himself. so whatever, take from this what you will. i don't know which set of lies you're referring to. I can't see how you can shoehorn this example into your narrative about proof-denying. Your side has been pants on fire wrong since November, but now once you have unethical behavior by DJT in seeking oppo, it's like the hyperpartisanship drive kicks into gear and excuses past behavior. Past behavior which has been routinely cited and explained and ignored by people like you, so I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised and just a little saddened.
How can this be true? We have in Don JRs emails that at least JR, Manafort, and Kushner knew that the Russian government was trying to help Trump through Emin and that the campaign principals were willing/attempting to go out and get campaign help from Russian government sources. That is proof of the more aggressive accusations of collusion. Some Dems were saying it was just Carter Page and Flynn. Now we have Don JR, Kushner, and Manafort not batting an eye when they hear that the Russian government is helping DJT.
I understand that swallowing so many lies from DJT can leave a bitter taste in your mouth, but you should try not garbling up every last lie they feed you. Maybe try NOT believing DJT when he says he didn't know about the meeting. Have you considered NOT trusting Don JR when he says nothing came of the meeting?
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 13 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 03:14 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:
How can you keep swallowing the lies DJT feeds you? I know you want to spin for him, but come on. DJT out and out lied about the contents of that meeting on Saturday. Then on Tuesday you are ready to believe him when he says nothing came of it? (DJT is speaking through DonJR and Hannity) How many more times are you going to get left holding the bags after the lies are dispelled? At what point do you get a sense of skepticism about the latest lies about what went down in that meeting? I'm not swallowing anything from Trump. In fact, I'm one of the few people not swallowing anything from anyone. Well just because you refuse to accept information doesn't mean it isn't correct. What information am I not accepting? In my world, information means facts and does not include speculation. Here's the template for most every conversation that I've had with TL's leftist/liberal posters on this Trump stuff: TL Leftist/Liberal: Trump did X, which is illegal! xDaunt: What do you base that on? TL Lefist/Liberal: Fuck you! You're a shill for Trump! Frankly, y'all should be embarrassed about this. Y'all are making it way too easy on me and others to fuck with you.
You did spend quite a while insisting that "I hope you will drop this" as part of a conversation about whether Comey wanted to keep his job wasn't illegal because there was no instruction to drop it there, only a hope that Comey would.
Whether that kind of absurd gymnastics counts as shilling in your mind is up to you.
|
so why have tweedledee and tweedledum argued that nothing russia-related happened and that nothing russia related that happened is illegal?
|
On July 13 2017 03:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 03:24 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 03:14 NewSunshine wrote:On July 13 2017 02:54 xDaunt wrote:On July 13 2017 02:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:
How can you keep swallowing the lies DJT feeds you? I know you want to spin for him, but come on. DJT out and out lied about the contents of that meeting on Saturday. Then on Tuesday you are ready to believe him when he says nothing came of it? (DJT is speaking through DonJR and Hannity) How many more times are you going to get left holding the bags after the lies are dispelled? At what point do you get a sense of skepticism about the latest lies about what went down in that meeting? I'm not swallowing anything from Trump. In fact, I'm one of the few people not swallowing anything from anyone. Well just because you refuse to accept information doesn't mean it isn't correct. What information am I not accepting? In my world, information means facts and does not include speculation. Here's the template for most every conversation that I've had with TL's leftist/liberal posters on this Trump stuff: TL Leftist/Liberal: Trump did X, which is illegal! xDaunt: What do you base that on? TL Lefist/Liberal: Fuck you! You're a shill for Trump! Frankly, y'all should be embarrassed about this. Y'all are making it way too easy on me and others to fuck with you. You did spend quite a while insisting that "I hope you will drop this" as part of a conversation about whether Comey wanted to keep his job wasn't illegal because there was no instruction to drop it there, only a hope that Comey would. Whether that kind of absurd gymnastics counts as shilling in your mind is up to you.
You're kinda missing the point that I made about the "I hope you will drop this" line. But more importantly for our immediate purposes, how can it be shilling when, so far, I've been proven right? We'll see what Mueller does, but at this point given that the leftists' and media's attention are elsewhere, it's pretty clear to me that everyone who is half-way reasonable has concluded that Trump did nothing wrong there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
