cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Arguing with a leftist on the internet is like wrestling with a greased pig. The thing is---the pig likes it.
KS
KS
Trump
- Thread starter THEMOJOMAN
- Start date
FYI, if..... you could give me some facts, that would be a start. What I'm saying is Not argument. If just fact.
Ill pass on the insults, and just keep posting the Facts, and Truth. Waiting on what's not True?
I was hoping there would be a Mature conversation, but when all fails just attack the posters fact with personal name calling. LOL!
In other words, you have nothing.
You keep comparing this to Watergate. But in that, Nixon was the target of the Watergate probe and he was accused of specific crimes…Right now, Trump isn’t accused of any crimes. In fact, by Comey’s account to Congress, the president isn’t even a target nor are any current senior government officials…And by countless testimony, including that of Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the probe hasn’t even found any evidence yet to prove criminal collusion between Trump associates and Russia to influence the election.
Actually, no. They are not. Comey confirmed as much. To the Senate Intelligence Committee as well as to Trump personally.
Again, you are throwing that word around very loosely. The MSM would essentially have you believe that having a shot of Russian vodka is “colluding” with the Putin. So, when a Trump admin official denies any such collusion, ANY connection, no matter how innocuous or perfectly acceptable is taken out of context and played as proof of a “lie”.
Coordinated efforts to politically delegitimize an election and the President’s entire administration should NOT be viewed as a problem?
But you haven’t provided any facts. Just claims from biased sources supporting a bogus narrative.
Shouting “fact” doesn’t make what you say a fact.
And simply ignoring any opposing/inconvinient facts presented (or dismissing it as “You Tube Rhetoric”) only suggests bad faith, and may be group think.
Can you comment on the Podesta Group and their connection to Manafort? On the fact that the indictment looks at transactions from when the two worked together?
I keep comparing this to Watergate? What are you reading and where. I said it like a whole 1 time. What keep are you talking about?
FYI: Watergate, they got everyone around Nixon, then Nixion Last.
PS: Its been 4 or 5 years since I watched MSM, or CNN before you go there. So that's that.
Who has not Lied on Trumps Campaign about even talking to Russia, and/or what they talked about?
And you can claim this link source is this and that, but the problem is the FACTS are 100%. It matters not who Video taped the crime and who told. If it was you committing it, it was you. Period.
Throwing the Podesta Group in just muddy's the water here. Its being investigated. But that aint going to change Trump and his Campaign people problems. Podesta will be investigated too. We can run all around the world if you want. But........
I dare you to tell me which thing here is not a fact? Without spinning to something else. Which thing did not Trump do, that Mueller will bring him down with Obstruction of Justice. Im calling your bluff. Which did not happen?
A Complete Timeline of the Obstruction of Justice Case Against Donald Trump
More hair splitting. So much for that “mature” conversation…
But Mother Jones, Slate and Vox are your go-to sources? Not really helping your case.
Ever considered the possibility that some people might have sources better than that? Maybe experts in certain areas (like law) that they communicate directly with on these matters? Maybe even some people connected enough to know more than any journalist?
Sorry, burden of proof is on you. No negative proof fallacies thank you very much.
Facts are also completely irrelevant, by themselves. This is critical thinking 101. Basic logic. The argument matters at least as much as the facts. Yet you seem very intent on avoiding making an argument.
It is child’s play to cherry pick whatever facts you want, infer your own context and draw whatever flights of fancy fit an agenda. That is the vast majority of journalism and politics today. That is why the credibility of the source matters. The argument they make and the logic behind it matter far more.
The problem with the Russiagate myth is that it does cherry pick certain facts and then connects it to the preferred narrative of the political establishment through exceedingly strained reasoning that is more innuendo than logic.
“Without a theory the facts are silent.” - Friedrich Hayek
"Evidence is fact that discriminates between one theory and another. Facts do not “speak for themselves.” They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theory or visions are mere isolated curiosities." -Thomas Sowell, a Conflict of Vision
“…without principles, all reasoning in politics, as in everything else, would only be a confused jumble of particular facts and details, without the means of drawing out any sort of theoretical or practical conclusion.” -Edmund Burke
Last edited:
Again, negative proof fallacy. The burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. Make the case. Merely pointing to a few isolated facts doesn’t do that. If it were that simple, there would be no need of lawyers in a court room.
You are not calling anyone’s bluff, you are dodging.
/\ Cute.
But it's so serious this FBI investigation is making the case. Just to back up the claimed fallacy, and debunk that the sources are the problems. Like it or not this all happened, and is the problem, regardless of the verified News source. I hate to tell you......... but, just thought the record would speak for itself. This is just a example of one little drop in a Big Bucket.
Its open for discussion, but not defection. FBI has already interviewed and have statements that its all true.
"March 22, 2017: The Washington Post reports Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and other senior officials participate in an Oval Office briefing, after which Trump asks Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo to stay for a private meeting. Trump complains to them about Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation and asks them to intervene with Comey to get the FBI to stop investigating Flynn. During later Senate testimony, Coates and Pompeo refuse to answer questions about this meeting without offering an explanation of any legal basis for doing so.
Within a day or two of this meeting, Trump reportedly makes separate telephone calls to both Coats and NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers, and requests that they issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of collusion between Trump officials and the Russian government.
Then Deputy Director of the NSA Richard Ledgett reportedly writes an internal NSA memo documenting Trump’s conversation with Rogers. During the call, Trump reportedly questions the accuracy of the IC Assessment that Russia had interfered with the election.
In addition to Trump’s requests, the Post reports that senior White House officials separately requested that top intelligence officials consider the possibility of intervening with Comey directly to have the FBI withdraw its probe of Flynn. Their reported lines of questioning included: “Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?”
But it's so serious this FBI investigation is making the case. Just to back up the claimed fallacy, and debunk that the sources are the problems. Like it or not this all happened, and is the problem, regardless of the verified News source. I hate to tell you......... but, just thought the record would speak for itself. This is just a example of one little drop in a Big Bucket.
Its open for discussion, but not defection. FBI has already interviewed and have statements that its all true.
"March 22, 2017: The Washington Post reports Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and other senior officials participate in an Oval Office briefing, after which Trump asks Coats and CIA Director Mike Pompeo to stay for a private meeting. Trump complains to them about Comey’s handling of the Russia investigation and asks them to intervene with Comey to get the FBI to stop investigating Flynn. During later Senate testimony, Coates and Pompeo refuse to answer questions about this meeting without offering an explanation of any legal basis for doing so.
Within a day or two of this meeting, Trump reportedly makes separate telephone calls to both Coats and NSA Director Adm. Michael Rogers, and requests that they issue public statements denying the existence of any evidence of collusion between Trump officials and the Russian government.
Then Deputy Director of the NSA Richard Ledgett reportedly writes an internal NSA memo documenting Trump’s conversation with Rogers. During the call, Trump reportedly questions the accuracy of the IC Assessment that Russia had interfered with the election.
In addition to Trump’s requests, the Post reports that senior White House officials separately requested that top intelligence officials consider the possibility of intervening with Comey directly to have the FBI withdraw its probe of Flynn. Their reported lines of questioning included: “Can we ask him to shut down the investigation? Are you able to assist in this matter?”
well, with moore and those who defend him, especially with the bible, we now know the republican age of consent. 
you're replying numpty. (guess you're a liking pig too)
you're usually the first to reply.
you're replying numpty. (guess you're a liking pig too)
you're usually the first to reply.
What FBI investigation? Mueller is a special counsel appointed by the DOJ. That is an investigation separate from the FBI. And not an investigation aimed at "getting Trump". Go look up the mandate given to Mueller by Rod Rosenstein.
Like I already pointed out Comey has confirmed there was no FBI investigation into Trump. Same with Clapper. Why should the Washington Post or other national media sources be believed over the head of the FBI and the Director of National Intelligence under Obama? And this isn’t the first time that direct sources have refuted bogus reporting in the media but the media lies live on. I’ll get to a few more in a minute.
Could you rephrase this? It reads very confusing.
You don’t “back up” a fallacy. You check your assumptions and correct your argument. If your intent is to double down on the fallacy, you are only undermining your own credibility.
And the Washington Post is one of the absolute worst sources available on this. They have been proven liars throughout the Russiagate story and, as wikileaks has confirmed, willfully colluded with the Hillary campaign and the DNC to mislead the American people.
Further, the owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, also owns Amazon (which Trump has spoken of in antitrust terms), has a beef with Trump, and is a Clinton Foundation donor. More importantly, he has a $600 million dollar contract with the CIA (worth FAR more than his Washington Post). It is absurd to take the CIA and DNC’s house organ as a credible source for all this.
Then why do you let these Dem party operatives with bylines in the media do your thinking for you?
If the record does speak for itself, it is not too hard to backtrack things to original sources and confirm things for yourself. Instead, you trust in the Washington Post, Slate, Mother Jones, and Vox to filter the facts, to tell you what is a “fact” and, ultimately, to do your thinking for you. Nevermind that every single one of these sources has demonstrably lied on this very issue, often via spreading half-truths or outright fictions as coming from “anonymous sources”. Any free-thinking person who has been paying any attention should know better than to trust the word of these liars. Anything coming from these sources should be treated as fiction unless and until independently verified.
As I mentioned earlier, there are numerous instances in the Russiagate coverage where the media ran a bogus story that was refuted by government officials but the story lives on. Probably the biggest one that comes to mind is the claim that 17 intelligence agencies confirmed that Russia hacked the DNC and gave the emails to wikileaks. Of course, the word “confirmed” never actually appeared in the Intelligence Community Assessment (which was crafted by “handpicked analysts” from the CIA, NSA, & FBI). But the headlines the media ran all said that 17 agencies “confirmed” Russia hacked the election. Of course, since this politicized “assessment” was released in late 2016, the 17 agency myth has been refuted under oath by James Clapper (Obama’s Director of National Intelligence) and John Brennan (Obama’s CIA Director) in May of this year. Of course, the media was still running with the story through late June of this year, when the NYT issued a retraction. But the story had already become accepted wisdom after 9 months of being pushed by the media. Even today, few people realize that claim has been retracted and still use it as a talking point in these discussions. This is the problem with you take the media as the arbiters of what is a “fact” and what is “truth”.
Another example would be the story from February that Trump’s campaign and other Trump associates had, “repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials in the year before the election, according to four current and former American officials.” Under oath, James Comey testified that this report was “not true”.
So, why should we trust what the media says is “fact” concerning Russiagate? You seem to think we should accept what they claim, yet they reported for months things that were not true (and are still accepted as true by a lot of people).
Every source you list has been a proven liar on the Russiagate story in particular. They all have proven to actively coordinate with Hillary and the DNC (to the point of giving the Hillary campaign editorial control of what they print, in some cases). The same is true of CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, NPR, NYT or most any other mainstream news outlet. Every one of these sources is heavily compromised and demonstrably dispensed with any journalistic ethics in their efforts to take down Trump.
Have you ever asked yourself why the actual content of the wikileaks releases got so little play in the media? Why was the focus on where the leaks came from, not what was actually in them? The leaks were VERY damaging to the credibility of the national media, so they actively sought to avoid examining the substance of those leaks. And avoiding the substance of the leaks is what lead to the mythmaking that evolved into the Russiagate narrative we have now.
For numerous reason, these sources have a vested interest in perpetuating the Russiagate myth. Why should we trust them? Should we not at least second guess them given their extreme bias. Look for independent verification and without it treat what they say as the one-sided propaganda that it tends to be?
Also, the record cannot simply “speak for itself” there is going to be questions of what is and is not relevant. What constitutes obstruction of justice, corruption, etc. And this isn’t simply with regards to Russiagate or political scandals in general. In life, the facts simply don’t speak for themselves. That is a very naïve view. There has to be a lens through which the facts are interpreted. Hopefully, that lens isn’t clouded by irrational bias (as in the case with the mainstream media and Russiagate or, more broadly, all things Trump). Hopefully, that lens is reason and logic. But in any and every field of thought, the facts don’t speak for themselves
"History cannot be imagined without theory. The naive belief that, unprejudiced by any theory, one can derive history directly from the sources is quite untenable. Rickert has argued in an irrefutable way that the task of history does not consist in the duplication of reality, but in its reconstitution and simplification by means of concepts. If one renounces the construction and use of theories concerning the connections among phenomena, on no account does one arrive at a solution of the problems that is free of theory and therefore in closer conformity with reality. We cannot think without making use of the category of causality. All thinking, even that of the historian, postulates this principle. The only question is whether one wants to have recourse to causal explanations that have been elaborated and critically examined by scientific thought or to uncritical, popular, prescientific 'dogmas.' No explanations reveal themselves directly from the facts."
-Ludwig von Mises
-Ludwig von Mises
well, that's the defining word. WAS. at that time. just everybody around him was under surveilance.
of course, after he fired comey that changed. it was obstruction of the flynn investigation as to why he fired comey. then he made up a bunch of bullshit and diversion after.
they'll make an airtight case before they go after trump. they're just going after the accomplices and minions first.
well, that's the defining word. WAS. at that time. just everybody around him was under surveillance.
it was obstruction of the flynn investigation as to why he fired comey. then he made up a bunch of bullshit and diversion after.
they'll make an airtight case before they go after trump. they're just going after the accomplices and minions first.
Good lord, you are stupid.
WHAT FBI investigation? There still is no FBI investigation.
A Special Counsel is appointed by the DOJ, not the FBI. Mueller's investigation is SEPARATE from the FBI.
Honestly, the FBI wouldn't even be the appropriate department for such an investigation at this point.
Relax already,
The 2017 Special Counsel investigation is an ongoing investigation in the United States led by former FBI Director Robert Mueller as special counsel under supervision of the U.S. Department of Justice.
If this makes you feel better? Now Trump is out of Hot water.
Oh by the way.......
"Chris Wray (Current FBI Director now) said he has "enormous respect" for Mueller and confidence in the team Mueller has assembled.
"He's really running that investigation," Wray said of Mueller. "The FBI have dedicated agents to it and other support to it. So there's a great group of people working on it."
Mueller was appointed special counsel in May to lead the investigation into potential coordination between Russia and associates of President Donald Trump's to meddle with the 2016 campaign."
*** Funny how Trump keeps trying to get people to say He's not under investigation?*** If Not I wonder why?***
If I may add/ask? Why just about everyone in the Trump Campaign is on Record lying about meeting with Russia, and what they met about? If Its ok? That's where their main problem is?
Session the US Attorney General does not know He's talking to a Russian? Which He denied under oath. FYI: The Russian Ambassador Session met with and talked to numerous times........ Is Definitely a RUSSIA. LOL!
Where are you getting this absurd notion that “just about everyone in the Trump Campaign is on Record lying” about meeting with Russia?
That is a patently absurd statement. What, did the Washington Post or the NYT use some “anonymous source” to make that laugable claim?
Offhand, I can think of 3 people who you can accurately say were misleading as to their previous ties or meetings with Russians (not necessarily Russia officials, mind you). And Sessions is not one of them.
Again, don’t let the media do your thinking for you. Look into these things for yourself.
Sessions was formerly a US Senator who, as part of his job regularly talked to foreign ambassadors, including Russian ones. Nothing at all conspicuous about that.
When asked about his contact with Russia at his confirmation hearings, the context of the question (asked by Senator Al Franken) narrowly focused on Sessions role as a surrogate for the Trump Campaign.
Franken: CNN has just published a story and I’m telling you this about a news story that’s just been published, so I’m not expecting you to know whether or not it’s true or not. But CNN just published a story alleging that the intelligence community provided documents to the president-elect last week that included information that quote, “Russian operatives claimed to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump.” These documents also allegedly say quote, “There was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump’s surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”
Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.
Now, again, I’m telling you this as it’s coming out, so you know. But if it’s true, it’s obviously extremely serious and if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?
Sessions: Senator Franken, I’m not aware of any of those activities. I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I didn’t have — did not have communications with the Russians, and I’m unable to comment on it.
In reporting on this, the media has hidden the context of the question asked and only focused on a portion Sessions answer, implying that he was talking in general about his contact with Russia.
In another instance of written questions from senators to Sessions during the confirmation process, he was asked by Patrick Leahy if he had been in contact with any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election. To which Session said, “no”.
Leahy: Several of the President-Elect’s nominees or senior advisers have Russian ties. Have you been in contact with anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016 election, either before or after election day?
Sessions: No.
Sessions: No.
Again, the question focused specifically on the context of the 2016 election.
The media hides that to make the answers to both questions seem much more generally focused than they are.
It is not Sessions who is lying, it is the media. As usual, they report half-truths and deny context to spin things to fit their narrative. Do your own research. Don’t let these liars think for you.
Last edited:
Now you are being disingenuous.well, you're pretty stupid, i didn't say fbi. i said he was under investigation.
take that plank outta your eye.
I mean, it isn't like you were responding to a quote that mentioned, specifically, an FBI investigation, or anything...
More dishonest progressives denying context.
And..... at the end of the day. Session had met with Russians on different occasions. But said NO he did not.
Did Session meet with any Russians or Not? The Village Idiot knows he did, and so did Sessions.
But you see "No", meaning something else. Really? And if as you say he meets with Russians all the time then..... why did he LIE about meeting them? Go Figure. Think about it??
Ok, we'll see when they haul him in with any phone call records, emails, or others testimony.
Last edited:
Now you are being disingenuous.
I mean, it isn't like you were responding to a quote that mentioned, specifically, an FBI investigation, or anything...
More dishonest progressives denying context.
sorry you can't read and just react to what you think is typed. typical knee jerk conservative reaction.
Even the highly progressive partisan sites factcheck.org and politifact can’t bring themselves to say Sessions lied. Yet you can’t consider the possibility that Sessions statements were narrowly focused on only his role in representing the Trump campaign, even when the full context in which he gave those statements supports that idea?
That says far more about your own judgment and prejudice than it does about the integrity of anyone in the Trump administration.
Word of advice; refusing to give someone (like Sessions) a reasonable benefit of the doubt can only hurt your own credibility in the long run. Going with the assumption that anything that can be construed as a lie, is a lie inevitably leads to double standards. For anyone who has been paying attention, the media’s double standards on these matters are legion and are a large part of why no one takes them seriously. If you are going to apply the same double standards, or simply go along with whatever standard the media imposes on the discussion, you are only going to discredit yourself to any fair-minded, free-thinking person.
Give me Break already with Rhetoric.
Sessions the US Attorney General says No, he didn't Meet with A Full Russian Ambassador. A Russian.
What's he doing having Private meetings with Russians anyway, while they were kicked out of the US and under sanctions?
Sessions the US Attorney General says No, he didn't Meet with A Full Russian Ambassador. A Russian.
What's he doing having Private meetings with Russians anyway, while they were kicked out of the US and under sanctions?
sessions is 3rd time back already trying to "Amend" his previous lies to congress.
anyway, sounds like an FU to the tax plan from some of the wealthiest.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n.../2017.Nov13_Tax_Letter_Release.pdf?1510588111
anyway, sounds like an FU to the tax plan from some of the wealthiest.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n.../2017.Nov13_Tax_Letter_Release.pdf?1510588111