• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged All things Trump + Russia

Status
Not open for further replies.
This would be more persuasive if, among her vigorous and unflagging explanations, apologies, and defenses for every single misstep Trump has ever made, she had ever shown even the slightest interest in calling out any bad arguments concerning Clinton.
Nobody is currently making bad arguments about Clinton. Please feel free to make one, and I'll happily call you out on it.

All the arguments being made right now are against Trump. That's not my choosing - I work with what I'm given. The fact that most of them are really, really, really bad arguments based on transparently obvious cherry-picking and spin is something I feel should be called out.
 
Nobody is currently making bad arguments about Clinton. Please feel free to make one, and I'll happily call you out on it.

All the arguments being made right now are against Trump. That's not my choosing - I work with what I'm given. The fact that most of them are really, really, really bad arguments based on transparently obvious cherry-picking and spin is something I feel should be called out.

Such as?
 
Er, you absurdly liken Putins wealth to that of US politicians...

No, that is not what I did. I was pretty clear what my objection was, even restated it and re-quoted it. But here you go, once more. Try to read and comprehend this time.

Not defending a dictator. Just stating the obvious - that lots of money, luxury items, and real estate deals don't make a person an evil dictator. Being an evil dictator makes a person an evil dictator.

None of the things that you mentioned are evidence of corruption. They might be an outcome of corruption, but by themselves they aren't sufficient to determine corrupt evil dictator.

Putin has luxuries because he is a corrupt dictator = True Statement
Putin is a corrupt dictator because he has luxuries = False Statement

--

I point out that Putin is vastly wealthy and that he didn't gain his wealth via books and speaking fees, and you find that offensive? How very unimpressive.
I find your assumption that I would suggest his wealth came from books and speaking fees to be offensive. Your skills at prognostication need some brushing up.
 
Disjointed blather.

Funny thing about my "idol" -- I didn't vote for her in 2008 nor in 2016. Nor will you find me saying positive things about her in my posting history. But other than that, I idolize her. :rolleyes:

The assumption that Childlike Empress made about you is the same assumption you made about me... just with a different target. Perhaps you might take that into consideration in the future?
 
She indicated she would have voted for Trump, had she lived in a swing state; in other words, had her vote been of any actual value to him. That's support in my book.
I indicated that I might have, given what I knew at the time, and given my view of Clinton. I also indicated repeatedly that I am far from certain about where my vote would have ended up.

Completely irrelevant to the point I was making--i.e., posturing as the defender of "reason and rationality" and the challenger of "rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth appeals to emotion", after having supported a candidate who's entire mission in life (besides cheating people out of their money and groping women in public) is making rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth appeals to emotion, is an example of cringe level hypocrisy. Which it is.
Accusation of posturing = false
Accusation of having supported Trump - false

Expecting self-proclaimed skeptics who rely on reason to show a higher level of critical thinking than the idiot in the White House? Seems like a completely rational stance for me to take.

Unless you feel that Trump's behavior excuses the complete abandonment of reason by a rather large number of posters on ISF? If that's the case, then I invite you support your position.
 
She indicated she would have voted for Trump, had she lived in a swing state; in other words, had her vote been of any actual value to him. That's support in my book.

Alright.

I never said EC supported Putin. Where did you get that from?

Take a look at the discussion that your quote came from. Overall, it's about Putin much more than Trump and involves Emily's Cat being accused of supporting Putin.

Completely irrelevant to the point I was making--i.e., posturing as the defender of "reason and rationality" and the challenger of "rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth appeals to emotion", after having supported a candidate who's entire mission in life (besides cheating people out of their money and groping women in public) is making rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth appeals to emotion, is an example of cringe level hypocrisy. Which it is.

I'd disagree that it's "cringe level hypocrisy" myself. It could be, but such depends quite a bit on the "why" of the decision. As for the point I made, that was assuming that you had been actually paying attention to that thread of conversation, rather than just jumping in and throwing out something unrelated.
 
Imagine if this happens.
If anything, this might fan the flames of "obstruction of justice"

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer did not rule out President Trump’s option to block former FBI Director James Comey from testifying before a congressional committee next week.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...wh-trying-to-block-comey-from-testifying.html

That's not going to happen. Executive privilege isn't an enumerated right of the President. It's nowhere in the Constitution. It is a tenuous claim by the Executive in the best of circumstances. If Trump did that it would only make things worse for his administration as it would make Trump's obstruction of justice and his contempt of our system of checks and balances more clear.

But beyond that, could Trump find a judge somewhere who would issue a gag order against the former FBI Director? Maybe if he goes looking but t would be overturned by every Circuit Court.

What's to stop Comey from holding an interview with Meet the Press and saying exactly what he was going to say to the Intel committee? Comey isn't Trump's lawyer and he's not longer an employee of the government and Trump himself has spoken about this himself.

I personally want Trump to do it.
 
That's not going to happen. Executive privilege isn't an enumerated right of the President. It's nowhere in the Constitution. It is a tenuous claim by the Executive in the best of circumstances. If Trump did that it would only make things worse for his administration as it would make Trump's obstruction of justice and his contempt of our system of checks and balances more clear.

But beyond that, could Trump find a judge somewhere who would issue a gag order against the former FBI Director? Maybe if he goes looking but t would be overturned by every Circuit Court.

What's to stop Comey from holding an interview with Meet the Press and saying exactly what he was going to say to the Intel committee? Comey isn't Trump's lawyer and he's not longer an employee of the government and Trump himself has spoken about this himself.

I personally want Trump to do it.

I agree. It would be amazing if Trump attempted to prevent Comey from testifying. Wouldn't work and would be further proof that Trump is trying to cover something up.
 
Last edited:
This is just got weird.

The Associated Press has learned that the special counsel running the U.S. investigation into possible ties between President Donald Trump’s campaign and Russia’s government has assumed oversight of an ongoing investigation involving former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

The investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller may also expand to look into the roles of the attorney general and deputy attorney general in the firing of FBI Director James Comey.
The Justice Department’s criminal investigation into Manafort, who was forced to resign in August amid questions over his past business dealings in Ukraine, predated the election and the counterintelligence probe investigating possible collusion between Moscow and associates of Donald Trump.

What happens if Rosenstein has to recuse himself since he's part of the investigation? Mueller technically reports to him.
 
There should already be impeachment process against Sessions. He perjured himself in his confirmation process. And then 70 days later he corrected his testimony only to lie again.

Don't be silly. Perjury is only impeachment worthy is a Democrat does it over something completely irrelevant
 
Putin has the goal of hurting the US and the West as much as possible.

The sanctions against Russia are problematic for Putin. Clearly he has a reason to try to influence our federal government.

How the Trump administration’s secret efforts to ease Russia sanctions fell short
Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said....

The lobbying effort produced some immediate results: On Feb. 7, Cardin and Sen. Lindsay Graham introduced bipartisan legislation to bar the administration from granting sanctions relief without first submitting a proposal to do so for congressional review. “Russia has done nothing to be rewarded with sanctions relief,” Graham said in a statement at the time. If the U.S. were to lift sanctions without “verifiable progress” by Russia in living up to agreements in Ukraine, “we would lose all credibility in the eyes of our allies in Europe and around he world,” added Cardin in his own statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom