President Trump

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay... but you keep treating it as if the content constitutes evidence.

One more time: Evidence - YES
Conclusive evidence - NO

I don't believe I've done any such thing.

Denial of what, exactly?

Thus the phrase "you appear to..."

You are denying there is any evidence Trump colluded with Russia. There is a lot of evidence, more is still needed.

The world is not black and white, there can be evidence against Trump that is still insufficient to conclude with certainty. I think more evidence is yet to be uncovered.

This really is not a complicated concept.

As for "you appear to," No, I don't. You are fabricating your reality.

 

[newyorkguy]

The trickle down effect:

Last month a Greenwich CT Republican town councilman named Christopher von Keyserling was arrested on a charge of 4th degree sexual abuse, after von Keyserling allegedly "pinched" a female town employee "inappropriately" in the groin area. This followed a verbal confrontation during which von Keyserling reportedly said, "I love this new world, I no longer have to be politically correct," and called the town employee a "lazy, bloodsucking union employee."

When the woman reacted angrily to von Keyserling touching her he responded that if she told anyone it would be his word against hers and "no one will believe you." The woman did contact local police and, after officers viewed surveillance video and found it "consistent with the woman’s account," von Keyserling was arrested. Apparently von Keyserling's immediate reaction was to deny he had touched the woman. Then, through his attorney (apparently after learning there was video of the incident), admitted touching the woman but claimed it was "a playful gesture."

Link to a discussion of the incident on Snopes.com, which includes an image of the police report. It wound up on Snopes after some conservative Republicans apparently denied this happened and claimed it was a "fake news" report.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

My status is still undetermined

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...

 

[Sideroxylon]

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down...

Which one?

 

[quadraginta]

I think this bears repeating. Vladimir Putin and his cronies are known to have looted billions of dollars from state industries being privatized; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents falsely convicted and sentenced to long prison terms; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents murdered; Putin has ordered invasions of neighboring countries.

Why in the world would Donald Trump like someone like this?

<snip>

Admire. He admires him. Also respects.

Of course, he might like him too. As much as someone like Trump might be capable of actually liking anybody.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Which one?

You hush, this is for Emily's cat.

 

[alfaniner]

I may be wrong, but I believe that for President Obama's final press conference he never once mentioned Trump by name, only as "the President-Elect".

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think this bears repeating. Vladimir Putin and his cronies are known to have looted billions of dollars from state industries being privatized; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents falsely convicted and sentenced to long prison terms; Putin is known to have had political dissidents and opponents murdered; Putin has ordered invasions of neighboring countries.

Why in the world would Donald Trump like someone like this?

Why in the world would any person like Donald Trump either? For that matter, I'm still trying to figure out how it was possible for my grandmother to have people in her life that considered her a friend. Serious, she was a horrible woman. No accounting for taste I guess.

We have to be careful here, folks, that we don't get so locked into positions that we begin accepting looting of public money running into the billions of dollars, war crimes, murder, false imprisonment. We seem to be fast approaching the point where we will actually be "debating" whether it's wrong to murder someone you really really dislike when that person begins creating problems for you. This whole turn of events is becoming like a nightmare.

WTH? I don't think any of this last paragraph applies to anyone in this thread, not even a little bit. I don't think anyone (even logger) is so "locked into a position" that they'd even wander close to your hyperbolic suggestions above.

 

[Emily's Cat]

One more time: Evidence - YES
Conclusive evidence - NO

Is this the same kind of "evidence" that exists in the form of grainy videos of bigfoot?

Just becuase something is written down somewhere doesn't make it evidence. Anecdotes aren't evidence. Fiction isn't evidence. Unverified speculation isn't evidence. At present, you don't even know what's in that dossier, you only know that it exists, and yet you've provisionally accepted those contents (which were dismissed out of hand by the current administration) as being "evidence".

You are denying there is any evidence Trump colluded with Russia.

No, I'm not. I've said that we do not know whether or not evidence exists. All we have so far is an article that says that someone made a report that alleges that evidence exists.

There is a lot of evidence, more is still needed.

There is a lot of allegation and speculation; evidence is still required.

The world is not black and white, there can be evidence against Trump that is still insufficient to conclude with certainty. I think more evidence is yet to be uncovered.

And yet you have already provisionally concluded his guilt. You clearly expect that the evidence to come will be evidence that supports your predetermined conclusion. You aren't on the fence, and you don't appear to be withholding judgment. You have clearly already reached your conclusion and formed your belief. Enough so that you see my lack of belief as a denial of evidence. This is my impression of your posts and the positions that you have indicated, as well as the arguments that you've engaged in.

This really is not a complicated concept.

I agree. It is not a complicated concept. That doesn't, however, mean that I agree with your interpretation of that concept. Nor does it imply that I agree with your reasoning or your application of logic in this regard.

As for "you appear to," No, I don't. You are fabricating your reality.

Yes, to me, you appear to. The phrase "you appear to" is a clear and direct expression of my personal interpretation of your position. It is not a statement of fact. It's most assuredly not a "fabrication of reality".

 

[Fast Eddie B]

So you approve of Russia hacking a political party's confidential emails?

No.

 

[SezMe]

If our nation is so weak it is vulnerable to distrust to its institutions, those institutions do not deserve our trust.

I strongly disagree. Trust is hard to earn and easy to destroy.

Take the current status of police, especially those in big cities. Da Fuzz used to be pretty well respected, I think. Then a shoot here, a beating there and that respect gets substantially eroded. Then a cop lies in court here and some black guy dies in prison and the respect is completely shattered.

But they're going to have to be squeaky clean for years before some general respect is granted.

Same process works at the national/international level and at the person level. The Russians can do a lot of harm by covertly maligning our most critical institutions. Take justice as an example. If they could impugn the integrity of the court system (which is already in poor shape) with the result that people began to seriously question it judgements, then the fabric of civil society would be rent.

In short, trust is ALWAYS vulnerable no matter how solid. Attempts to weaken trust in democratic institutions should be taken VERY seriously.

 

[SezMe]

Where are these people? I'm not admitting to being one. I bet you are not admitting to be one. It always seems like this never applies to anybody in the room.

20% of Americans believe the sun goes around the Earth. 40% believe angels are real beings. 40+% believe in the literal resurrection of Jesus. A large number (I don't don't remember the exact number) can't name the three branches of the federal government. A somewhat smaller number can't name ANY of the three.

I think you've been in some atypical rooms. But don't take that as a criticism. The same applies to me. People tend to associate with others of the same ilk.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Is this the same kind of "evidence" that exists in the form of grainy videos of bigfoot?

No, not even close. Is that your problem here, you don't understand that a reputable company with a reputable investigator is turning out unconfirmed but inconclusive evidence?

Just becuase something is written down somewhere doesn't make it evidence. Anecdotes aren't evidence. Fiction isn't evidence. Unverified speculation isn't evidence. At present, you don't even know what's in that dossier, you only know that it exists, and yet you've provisionally accepted those contents (which were dismissed out of hand by the current administration) as being "evidence".

Your confirmation bias is causing you to dismiss a reputable source.

No, I'm not. I've said that we do not know whether or not evidence exists. All we have so far is an article that says that someone made a report that alleges that evidence exists.

Like I said, your confirmation bias is leading you to dismiss a reputable source.

And yet you have already provisionally concluded his guilt.

There you go again, claiming I've said things I haven't said and failing to back it up with any quote of mine.

[snipped the rest, you aren't moving forward]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No.

But you would have us ignore the hacking and look instead at gossipy emails?

 

[Toontown]

But you would have us ignore the hacking and look instead at gossipy emails?

The Russian email hacking was a diversion. the real Russian attack was on the Trumpkins' brains.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Propaganda can be so amazing for its disconnect from reality. We have to detach from, say, the direct published evidence of Saudi Arabia lavishing millions on the Clintons including a Saudi prince claiming credit for 20% of the cost of Hillary's campaign out of Riyadh.

But we should argue endlessly about Russia and send all the investigative agencies out to see if Trump was somehow influenced. In one case the public record is amazing really, for the millions involved, the Russian uranium deal and money from Russia to the Clintons too - and in the other case absolutely nothing in the pubic record.

But it is over for both the mainstream media, the globalists, and the PC virtue-signalers. The swamp is going to be drained. The press pool is going to expand to include real journalists now.

The more of them there are, the less able the Deep State is to control the narrative.

Looking forward to 2017.

 

[Toontown]

Of course I can't absolutely prove the Russians have downloaded the equivalent of a computer virus into the Trumpkins' brains. I watched them do it, but seeing something happening doesn't mean one can prove it happened.

However, Trumpkins often serve as helpful demos.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I strongly disagree. Trust is hard to earn and easy to destroy.

Take the current status of police, especially those in big cities. Da Fuzz used to be pretty well respected, I think. Then a shoot here, a beating there and that respect gets substantially eroded. Then a cop lies in court here and some black guy dies in prison and the respect is completely shattered.

But they're going to have to be squeaky clean for years before some general respect is granted.

Same process works at the national/international level and at the person level. The Russians can do a lot of harm by covertly maligning our most critical institutions. Take justice as an example. If they could impugn the integrity of the court system (which is already in poor shape) with the result that people began to seriously question it judgements, then the fabric of civil society would be rent.

In short, trust is ALWAYS vulnerable no matter how solid. Attempts to weaken trust in democratic institutions should be taken VERY seriously.

But in all these cases, institutions actually did something to erode trust. They shouldn't be protected from that.

 

[SezMe]

Nancy Pelosi? What is there to respect about Nancy Pelosi?

Consider that it really ought to be called PelosiCare for her ability to push the ACA through the House. You ought to respect that sort of leadership even if you don't like the ACA. Boner and Ryan couldn't carry her jock strap - or whatever the hell the analogy ought to be.

 

[SezMe]

It is not true that her win of the popular vote was widespread across the whole country, as seems to be implied every time this argument gets made.

Bad argument. You may well infer that implication but the assertion about the fact of the popular carries no such implication by itself. Perhaps you can show where such an implication is explicit - or even implicit.