Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fake polls, fake news
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 586 of 710 (801177)
03-03-2017 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 582 by Faith
03-03-2017 4:02 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
Sure, and joking about sexual assault isn't something the media should bring up about a presidential candidate...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 4:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 588 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 4:15 PM Genomicus has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 587 of 710 (801178)
03-03-2017 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 585 by Faith
03-03-2017 4:06 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
So he falsely boasts about sexually assaulting women. That still isn't good.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 585 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 4:06 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 588 of 710 (801179)
03-03-2017 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 586 by Genomicus
03-03-2017 4:06 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
There's just something about the tone, the context, that makes it something other than boasting about sexual assault. The term assault doesn't fit it. Tic tacs so he can kiss her? If he said something like
"want to bet I can get her in bed this afternoon? or that sort of thing it would fit the accusation better. There isn't enough information there to come to that conclusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 586 by Genomicus, posted 03-03-2017 4:06 PM Genomicus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 589 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2017 4:35 PM Faith has replied
 Message 590 by PaulK, posted 03-03-2017 4:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 589 of 710 (801181)
03-03-2017 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by Faith
03-03-2017 4:15 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
He bragged about grabbing a woman's pussy without any consent. How the living hell, as a christian or a human being, can you defend that?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 4:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 592 by jar, posted 03-03-2017 5:33 PM Theodoric has replied
 Message 595 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 12:48 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 590 of 710 (801182)
03-03-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by Faith
03-03-2017 4:15 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
Grabbing a woman and kissing her without even waiting to give her a chance to refuse is assault in my book.
(And how on earth do you read "want to bet I can get her in bed this afternoon?" as assault ? That IS just words)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 4:15 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 591 of 710 (801183)
03-03-2017 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 575 by Faith
03-03-2017 3:30 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
Faith writes:
Clinton did physically assault many women.
Can you provide any support for that assertion?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 575 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 3:30 PM Faith has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 592 of 710 (801184)
03-03-2017 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 589 by Theodoric
03-03-2017 4:35 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
Theo writes:
He bragged about grabbing a woman's pussy without any consent. How the living hell, as a christian or a human being, can you defend that?
Come on Theo, you disappoint me. I bet a good Christian can cite Chapter and Verse of God commanding that and more be done.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2017 4:35 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 593 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2017 5:38 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 593 of 710 (801185)
03-03-2017 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 592 by jar
03-03-2017 5:33 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
Good point.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 592 by jar, posted 03-03-2017 5:33 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(1)
Message 594 of 710 (801188)
03-03-2017 7:45 PM


BOOM! POTUS Trump Uses Gateway Pundit’s Story to SLAM Chuckie Schumer
Jim Hoft makes up more fake news.
FYI Schumer met Putin in 2003, when Schumer was a senator from New York. The occasion was an opening of a bunch of Russian-owned gas stations in New York. The interaction was obviously in public with lots of witnesses and press and other participants. The donuts were Krispy Kreme, but the international conspiracy is suppressing what flavors they chose.
Yeah, that's exactly equivalent to or worse than multiple private meetings.

Replies to this message:
 Message 596 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 12:58 AM JonF has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 595 of 710 (801190)
03-04-2017 12:48 AM
Reply to: Message 589 by Theodoric
03-03-2017 4:35 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
A Christian couldn't talk like that, and I didn't vote for a Christian in Trump, I voted for his political policies. His mouth can be a problem but until there's some kind of evidence of actual sexual assault it's just words and I object far more to the Leftist witch hunt than I do to his verbal offenses.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 589 by Theodoric, posted 03-03-2017 4:35 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 596 of 710 (801191)
03-04-2017 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 594 by JonF
03-03-2017 7:45 PM


Russian plots
WARNING: This is information I've heard from various sources including Laura Ingraham and Infowars. It's not in writing.
The point is that lots of American politicians have had contact with Russia over the last few years or decade and nobody made anything of it. Kerry spent quite a bit of time with Putin and another Russian representative in 2015 with the same objective of easing relations with Russia that Trump has, without anybody objecting. Hillary met with Putin privately and secretly twice as Secty of State. Sessions simply ran into a Russian ambassador at a gathering where he ran into lots of ambassadors from lots of countries, all as part of his senatorial obligations and nothing to do with the Trump campaign.
This is all just part of the Leftist witch hunt, depending on people being ignorant of these things, either ignorant or complicit with the witch hunt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 594 by JonF, posted 03-03-2017 7:45 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 597 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2017 1:29 AM Faith has replied
 Message 602 by JonF, posted 03-04-2017 8:56 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(4)
Message 597 of 710 (801192)
03-04-2017 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 596 by Faith
03-04-2017 12:58 AM


Re: Russian plots
If the meetings were the reason for the suspicion you might have a point. But they aren't. The fact that both Flynn and Sessions didn't admit to their contacts with the Russians when they should have is more important. And even that is less important than the evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election and the shift towards a more pro-Russian stance.
There are a lot of things suggesting a relationship with the Russians that may have gone beyond what is proper. And the cover-up attempts only make it look more plausible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 596 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 12:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 598 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 2:06 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 598 of 710 (801193)
03-04-2017 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 597 by PaulK
03-04-2017 1:29 AM


Re: Russian plots
If the meetings were the reason for the suspicion you might have a point. But they aren't. The fact that both Flynn and Sessions didn't admit to their contacts with the Russians when they should have is more important.
They had no reason to "admit" to contacts that were completely unrelated to the questions asked them, as Sessions clearly explains in his interview with Tucker Carlson. He answered the questions honestly as he understood them. He and Flynn acted in no way differently than other US representatives in frequent contacts with ambassadors from Russia and elsewhere, and none of it ever had anything to do with Trump's campaign. Why would they even THINK of mentioning something so irrelevant? They wouldn't. Only a weasel Leftist would think of it and hang it on them. Flynn was railroaded. Trump should have defended him.
And even that is less important than the evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election and the shift towards a more pro-Russian stance.
What evidence? There isn't any evidence. It's all a figment of the Leftist imagination in the service of the witch hunt.
Here's a recent discussion of this fake news from Frontpage:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions officially recused himself yesterday from the nonsensical, possibly even nonexistent, federal probe into claims of Russian interference in the election — claims that for all we know were invented by President Trump’s enemies in the intelligence community and the Democratic Party.
Despite the oceans of mass media hysteria, there is still no publicly available trustworthy evidence that the Trump campaign somehow colluded with the Russian government last year. Sources in newspaper articles are never identified. There is not a scintilla of proof of improper conduct. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. All we have is the alleged say-so of faceless CIA spooks whose motives are questionable, to put it charitably.
...It needs to be said that even the theory that Russian President Vladimir Putin has been trying to undermine the public’s faith in American democracy is suspect. The KGB veteran delights in being seen as a puppet master who throws his weight around in other countries. As a few voices in the wilderness have suggested, if Russia is trying to manipulate the American political process, it is in an attempt to shore up Putin’s position at home. In other words, it is a propaganda campaign aimed at Russians in Russia, and the Left is only too happy to help out in order to hurt Trump.
Where's the evidence?
There are a lot of things suggesting a relationship with the Russians that may have gone beyond what is proper.
Such as? Which fake news invention has most captured your attention about this?
And the cover-up attempts only make it look more plausible
Imaginary cover-up attempts for an imaginary offense.
And even that is less important than the evidence of Russian attempts to influence the election and the shift towards a more pro-Russian stance.
What's "pro-Russian" about wanting to have good relations with Russia, same thing Kerry was seeking in his visit in 2015? Why wasn't that "pro-Russian?"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 597 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2017 1:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 599 by PaulK, posted 03-04-2017 2:23 AM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 599 of 710 (801195)
03-04-2017 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 598 by Faith
03-04-2017 2:06 AM


Re: Russian plots
quote:
They had no reason to "admit" to contacts that were completely unrelated to the questions asked them, as Sessions clearly explains in his interview with Tucker Carlson. He answered the questions honestly as he understood them.
Flynn was sacked for lying to Pence on the matter. Are you saying that the Trump administration lied about that ?
And I have seen the transcript of the question. There is no reasonable doubt that Session's answer was misleading.
quote:
Why would they even THINK of mentioning something so irrelevant? They wouldn't. Only a weasel Leftist would think of it and hang it on them. Flynn was railroaded. Trump should have defended him.
Obviously the fact of the communications was relevant. If they had just come clean at the start Sessions would probably not be in trouble. I understand that Flynn may be because of the content of the telephone calls
quote:
What evidence? There isn't any evidence. It's all a figment of the Leftist imagination in the service of the witch hunt.
Leaks of material taken from the DNC by groups which appear to be State-sponsored Russian hackers seem like enough evidence for suspicion.
quote:
Imaginary cover-up attempts for an imaginary offense.
Oh there are good reasons to think that there is a cover-up. And if the offence were imaginary that seems odd. Funny how people with the ability to manufacture a conspiracy from some emails which are at worst a little odd won't see anything untoward here.
quote:
What's "pro-Russian" about wanting to have good relations with Russia, same thing Kerry was seeking in his visit in 2015? Why wasn't that "pro-Russian?"
Yawn. It is quite clear that the Trump regime is more friendly toward Russia than the previous administration and with the amount of Russian sabre rattling, the events in the Ukraine and the possibility of interference in the presidential election that is of concern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 598 by Faith, posted 03-04-2017 2:06 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(4)
Message 600 of 710 (801199)
03-04-2017 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by Faith
03-03-2017 3:20 PM


Re: SOTUS use of Navy Seal
Faith writes:
quote:
Not about men I know, about media jumping on a private remark.
Because it wasn't just "a private remark."
After Trump and Bush talk about sexual harassment of women, they then proceed to sexually harass Arianne Zucker.
Did you forget that part? They harass her into touching them.
And in case you forgot, Trump was talking about his sexual harassment of Nancy O'Dell:
I moved on her like a bitch, but I couldn't get there, and she was married.
So he doesn't care about marriage vows (which we know because he has cheated on all of his wives), deliberately and aggressively pursues a married woman, and complains when he gets rebuffed.
That you think this is merely "a private remark" shows just how much of a monster you are, Faith.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Faith, posted 03-03-2017 3:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024