Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 1:57 PM
343 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,024 Year: 28,630/21,208 Month: 696/1,847 Week: 71/475 Day: 18/53 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Author Topic:   Finally, some real news about the Mueller indictments
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11839
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 76 of 122 (822791)
11-01-2017 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Faith
11-01-2017 12:59 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
Oh opinions like Flaherty's which cover a lot of factual information do indeed count.

Again, how do you know his opinions are factual?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 12:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Aussie
Member
Posts: 142
From: Sanford, FL USA
Joined: 10-02-2006
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 77 of 122 (822792)
11-01-2017 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
11-01-2017 11:35 AM


Re: NYC Truck Attack Plus Trumps Tweet
The reason for such jihadi attacks is Islam, Phat, even if only a few act on it. The person doesn't need to have mental problems, he or she just needs to be convinced that Allah will reward him or her for killing infidels. Western psychobabble can't explain this stuff and we're dangerously deluded to think it can. For Trump or anyone to try to explain it as a mental illness totally misses the point.

I think I will never forget the horror of having to listen to you defend the slicing open of pregnant mothers and infants in the name of the Biblical Jihad that is the book of Joshua for great promise and reward. I think I'll never get over it as long as I live. You are correct in that clinical insanity is not a requirement. The point is that any bloodthirsty enough God with unquestioning loyalty from unthinking enough followers will result inevitably in evil actions, such as this monster's; or evil thoughts and words, such as yours. How can you even be so without shame that you could bring yourself to talk about this?

Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.

Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.

Edited by Aussie, : No reason given.


"...heck is a small price to pay for the truth"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 11:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3998
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 78 of 122 (822793)
11-01-2017 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
11-01-2017 12:57 PM


Show me any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia.

There is no such publically available evidence. There is plenty of evidence that his family and campaign workers had an astounding number of suspicious contacts with Russians, some of which were almost certainly illegal.

The investigation isn't finished, and what we do know indicates it must continue.

We have seen far less evidence than Mueller has.

If Trump is innocent, so be it. If he's guilty, so be it. As of now nobody outside the investigation has anything resembling the full story and should not be claiming to know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 12:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-01-2017 3:41 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 79 of 122 (822794)
11-01-2017 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Faith
10-31-2017 3:07 PM


Re: One reasonable leftist voice
Faith writes:

Right. Such as by fulfilling the promises he made to those who voted him into office so that the views of his defeated opponents can prevail although they were voted out.


When a candidate makes bad promises, I'd rather have him break them.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 10-31-2017 3:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(2)
Message 80 of 122 (822796)
11-01-2017 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Phat
11-01-2017 12:05 PM


Re: More About Fake News: How Do We Separate Truth from Fiction?
Phat writes:

They accuse Trump of gaslighting, but others would defend him in that he is simply using the tools of modern communication.


I don't think what Trump does is gaslighting. That would imply some long-term plan.

I think what Trump does is just plain ad hoc lying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Phat, posted 11-01-2017 12:05 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7537
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 81 of 122 (822797)
11-01-2017 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
11-01-2017 12:54 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
there is absolutely NO evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia

Naturally. There is however evidence that Russia attempted to influence the election in Trump's favour. Cui bono? It might be that Russia felt it benefited them enough for them to do it alone. It might be that Russia felt it could have a bigger impact if they acted in concert with the Trump camp. There is evidence that there was some deception about Russian communications from the Trump camp. The timings of certain statements suggest that Trump had foreknowledge of information gathered and subsequently released by Russian groups. There is evidence that Trump declined to release information regarding his finances.

So there is smoke, it's certainly a good idea to investigate the existence of a fire. And if the President was complicit in starting the fire - that is important. The consequences are such that it would be a good idea to be as certain of the truth of the issue as possible.

The consequences of a President not being eligible for the Presidency seems less consequential than if the President owes Russia - or if Russia has some leverage over the President.

along with one phony disgusting "dossier" against Trump invented by Democrats

The dossier was not invented by Democrats. The Republicans paid Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. Then the Democrats started paying Fusion GPS. Either Fusion discovered the facts, or they invented them, or they discovered other people's inventions. Not the Democrats.

there's plenty of evidence of Clinton's Russia collusion.

The right wing media should start reporting this, rather than talking about the Uranium deal, then.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 12:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 82 of 122 (822799)
11-01-2017 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Faith
11-01-2017 11:40 AM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
Faith writes:

The fact remains that the whole narrative about Trump's supposed collusion with Russia was invented to cover Hillary's tracks (and very likely also Mueller's).

It's obvious you're not even reading my posts. You're just repeating your talking points like a parrot.

Mueller was appointed by Trump appointee Rod Rosenstein. In effect you're claiming that Trump's White House appointed Mueller to carry out the investigation so that he could instead cover Hillary Clinton's "tracks" and his own. Why on earth would the Trump White House do that? You're not making any sense.

You didn't reply to my Message 53, so I'm still wondering:

  • How could you possibly know the difference between an opinion piece and a news article if, "News these days is really just opinion?"

  • How do you reconcile my break down of half a new article from the NYT in my Message 44 showing that it was all truth, no lies, and no opinion, with your claim that, "News and opinion are so blurred on the left anyway it hardly matters."?

  • Why are you still using the word collusion when, as I said in Message 53, "By the way, apparently from a legal standpoint collusion isn't a crime, while conspiracy is. Likely Mueller will be trying to prove conspiracy."

  • What are the "irrelevant truths" covering up the "big truths" in the NYT article (Trump Belittles Aide Caught in Russia Inquiry; Calls Him ĎLiarí)?

  • Where is an example of this "fake news" reporting you claim exists? News that reflects poorly on your guy is not "fake news".

  • Given how often and determinedly Trump lies, what makes you think he's right that the Mueller probe is a witch hunt?

  • If Trump and his campaign is innocent, why isn't he determined that the special counsel that his administration appointed get to the truth of things and prove everyone innocent? By the way, the likelihood of proving everyone innocent at this point is nil given that George Papadopoulos has already pled guilty.

  • Why does it make any sense for Trump to respond to developments in the Mueller investigation with accusations against Clinton that are totally unrelated? Do you think judges are reading Trump's tweets and reasoning, "Mueller's request for indictments fulfill all legal requirements, but I'll rule against them because no one is investigating Clinton."? What sense does that make?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 11:40 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1592
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 83 of 122 (822800)
11-01-2017 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by JonF
11-01-2017 2:48 PM


There is plenty of evidence that his family and campaign workers had an astounding number of suspicious contacts with Russians, some of which were almost certainly illegal.

Plus, Trump, his family, and his inner circle have repeatedly lied about contacts with Russians, publicly, in sworn testimony in front of Congress, and on security clearance forms. They have had numerous financial dealings with Russians, including criminals and oligarchs that were lied about.

Trump has refused to implement the sanctions against Russia that he signed into law and that were supposed to start on October 1.

Trump and his gang's behavior sure looks like guilt and fear of exposure. The blind gullibility of their supporters in the face of the largest criminal enterprise ever pulled off in America is what I find astounding.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by JonF, posted 11-01-2017 2:48 PM JonF has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(3)
Message 84 of 122 (822802)
11-01-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
11-01-2017 11:44 AM


Hi Faith,

Taq already replied to your message, but he was kind of brief and I'd like to examine your post in greater detail.

Faith writes:

You've bought the party line, that's all.

Someone's sure bought a line, but I don't think it's Taq. The Flaherty opinion piece is full of "either false or unverified allegations." You seem to be accepting them unquestioningly.

The fact is that the whole Trump-Russia story was invented to cover Clinton,...

But that's not a fact. That's a fiction made up by the alt-right.

...it's entirely fake news from beginning to end.

How is it "fake news"? Isn't it true that Mueller obtained indictments of Mannfort and Gates? Isn't it true that Mueller obtained a guilty plea from George Papadopoulos? What is it, exactly, that you're alleging is fake?

The so-called "alt-right" has been saying this for a year at least.

The "alt-right" calls everything fake news that they disagree with. Calling stuff fake news they've been very successful at, actually demonstrating fake news barely at all. That's because the problem of "fake news" is made up, not real.

It may not "work," of course, as you say, since the truth is often a casualty where powerful people have the means to suppress it.

The Republicans control the executive branch and both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court again has a conservative majority. All the power lies on the side of the Republicans and the conservatives. If anyone has the power to suppress truth it is Trump and his administration, and they've been doing their darndest at it so far.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 11:44 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 85 of 122 (822803)
11-01-2017 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Faith
11-01-2017 12:13 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
Faith writes:

New Cat's Eye writes:

Faith writes:

The fact remains that the whole narrative about Trump's supposed collusion with Russia was invented to cover Hillary's tracks.

How do you know that's a fact? One man's opinion does not prove it.

It's been discussed to death for a year now with all the evidence you could ask for,...

What evidence would that be? If the evidence says that nothing took place, why did George Papadopoulos plead guilty to making false statements to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian government?

...by hundreds of voices of the suppressed "alt-right" media.

How are Breitbart, American Renaissance, Radix Journal, Daily Stormer, VDARE and The Right Stuff (to name some of the more popular alt-right websites) suppressed if their websites are out there for anyone to access any time they like?

Flaherty is merely affirming what they all have been saying all that time.

Flaherty affirmed nothing, merely propagating a popular narrative among the alt-right. So far you've been able to muster not a whit of evidence for any of it.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 12:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2017 4:24 PM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 86 of 122 (822806)
11-01-2017 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Percy
11-01-2017 4:00 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
To be fair the Daily Stormer has had considerable trouble lately and last I heard they were off the web (although they could be back by now). But equally I donít think that even Faith would be daft enough to use them as an example of the poor oppressed conservatives.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Percy, posted 11-01-2017 4:00 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 11-01-2017 4:33 PM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 87 of 122 (822807)
11-01-2017 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
11-01-2017 12:54 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
Faith writes:

Taq writes:

Faith writes:

It's been discussed to death for a year now with all the evidence you could ask for, by hundreds of voices of the suppressed "alt-right" media. Flaherty is merely affirming what they all have been saying all that time.

Repeating opinions does not make them facts.

Ya don't say. Golly I guess I'm really stupid then aren't I?

If you're not, as you say, "really stupid" and you realize that repeating opinions doesn't turn them into facts, then why do you keep attempting it? Running out of alternatives?

The point is that we're not just talking about one man's opinion,...

Of course Flaherty's opinion is not just "one man's opinion." He's parroting the opinion of the alt-right. There was no need to make this obvious point, especially since the point Taq actually raised was that repeating opinions many times doesn't turn them into facts.

...it helps to read in the context of what is being answered.

You haven't answered anything.

However, as I said, the evidence has been covered over the last year,...

Will you at some point be describing at least some of this evidence, or will you continue stonewalling?

...starting with the fact that there is absolutely NO evidence of any collusion between Trump and Russia,...

Assuming that by "Trump" you actually mean the "Trump campaign," since that is what Mueller is investigating, and reminding you once again that collusion isn't a crime and that it is more likely that Mueller is seeking evidence of a conspiracy, if there were "absolutely NO evidence of any [conspiracy] between [the Trump campaign] and Russia" then why did George Papadopoulos plead guilty to lying to the FBI about his Russian contacts? Why were Mannafort and Gates indicted and placed under house confinement, since that means a grand jury was presented some pretty compelling evidence?

...along with one phony disgusting "dossier" against Trump invented by Democrats,...

Modulous has already explained your error here, but it bears repeating. The Republicans hired Fusion GPS first when they were working hard at preventing Trump from becoming the Republican nominee. That failed, and then the Democrats hired Fusion GPS. The information about Trump came from Fusion GPS, not the Democrats, and it was paid for by both the Republicans and the Democrats. Them's the facts.

...followed by the fact that there's plenty of evidence of Clinton's Russia collusion.

And that evidence would be?

You won't find out any of that if all you read is the leftist press.

You're the one who mentioned this evidence. What is it, and please provided links to your sources?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 12:54 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 88 of 122 (822808)
11-01-2017 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
11-01-2017 4:24 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
PaulK writes:

To be fair the Daily Stormer has had considerable trouble lately and last I heard they were off the web (although they could be back by now). But equally I donít think that even Faith would be daft enough to use them as an example of the poor oppressed conservatives.

I wasn't aware of the Daily Stormer's difficulties, but at least as of today their website seems to be alive and kicking.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2017 4:24 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 11-01-2017 4:38 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 89 of 122 (822810)
11-01-2017 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
11-01-2017 4:33 PM


Re: The Flaherty Piece Examined Paragraph by Paragraph
They were kicked off of a number of hosts in the wake of their disgusting reporting on events at Charlottesville. When they started suggesting that CloudFlare supported them the boss of CloudFlare lost patience and kicked them off too.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 11-01-2017 4:33 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16294
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 90 of 122 (822813)
11-01-2017 4:49 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
11-01-2017 12:57 PM


Faith writes:

Show me any evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. There has never been any.

Mueller's mandate is to investigate the Trump campaign, not Trump, so assuming by "Trump" you mean the "Trump Campaign", and assuming that by "colluding" you actually mean "conspiring", you're asking for evidence that the Trump compaign conspired with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election. (Actually, more accurately, Mueller's mandate is to investigate Russian interference in that election.)

Why do you expect evidence now while the investigation is ongoing, before it has completed and generated a report and so forth? But as mentioned a couple times earlier, Papadopoulos has already pled guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russians, so the evidence of his meetings with the Russians represents some of the evidence that exists already at this early stage of the investigation. Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, admits to four meetings with the Russians during the 2016 campaign, and whatever details of those meetings that are uncovered will represent more evidence.

It is possible that nothing may come out of the Mueller investigation regarding the Trump campaign, though it does kind of look pretty bad for Mannafort and Gates given all their money laundering activity, and Flynn seems on pretty thin ice, too.

Whatever the eventual outcome of the Mueller investigation, one thing we can say with certainty is that Trump is very poor at selecting staff.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 11-01-2017 12:57 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
789Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017