Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[varwoche]

They're both true. There's no conflict there.

They set the meeting up expecting damaging info about Clinton. What they got was a discussion about adoption.
Consider an analogy: I left the house around noon, to go to the gym. I ended up at the donut shop.

No, they said that they had a meeting about adoption.

They also initially failed to inform people about the meeting, and then lied about it, changing their story after the press got hold of an email.

The attendee list also increased several times.

Regardless of that, if you are a candidate and you get an email from someone who claims to represent the Russian government, offering dirt on your opponent, then you report it unless you think it's a hoax.

Which the Trump campaign did not.

Indeed.

EC, this is a good example of you representing Trump much like a spokesperson would, facts be damned, per usual.

 

[Belz...]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/trump-russia-investigation.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump Jr. told Senate investigators on Thursday that he set up a June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer because he was intrigued that she might have damaging information about Hillary Clinton, saying it was important to learn about Mrs. Clinton’s “fitness” to be president.

But, I thought it was about adoption:

In his statement, Donald Trump Jr. said: “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.”

But that's impossible. His supporters assured us that he took the meeting to discuss Russian baby adoptions. Cute little babies!

 

[Belz...]

Ha ha ha ha ha... That's a funny joke there.

You: You've rejected everything!
Me: No, I haven't rejected everything. I've rejected most things, but I've accepted some things, for example (lists specifics). I've rejected things that (presents specific criteria used for rejection)
You: It's unanimous that you rejected everything, so you must be lying either to us or to yourself!

Really? That's what you're gonna go with? I expect better of you, Argumemnon.

Ah, and now you're downright lying. What an upgrade! Obviously the stuff you accepted beforehand, you didn't reject.

You just made the argument that people who don't agree with you don't count

Ah, more lying. That's not the "argument" I made at all. First because it wasn't an argument but a statement of fact, and I never mentioned or implied that them disagreeing with me had anything to do with it.

But keep at it. Anything to protect Trump.

 

[Stacko]

How were Ty and Sarah to know that dan.scavinojr@emailprankster.co.uk wasn't actually Dan Scavino Jr.?

White House special counsel Ty Cobb engaged in a lengthy email exchange with a prankster posing as White House social media director Dan Scavino, during which Cobb asked whether there was "any drone time left" when discussing a Business Insider reporter he described as "insane."

Over the past few days, Business Insider has reported on other email exchanges in which Cobb asked this reporter if she was "on drugs" and delved into his motivations for taking a job in President Donald Trump's White House.

In the new exchange, the self-described "email prankster," who tweets under the name @SINON_REBORN and provided the emails to Business Insider, wrote to Cobb's official White House account on Tuesday night.

How are they all so dumb?

 

[Emily's Cat]

EC, this is a good example of you representing Trump much like a spokesperson would, facts be damned, per usual.

What facts? Do you have any information regarding what was discussed in that meeting beyond what has been shared by those involved? Has anyone at all who was there suggested that the discussion was of anything other than the Magnitzky thingy?

What facts am I damning?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah, and now you're downright lying. What an upgrade! Obviously the stuff you accepted beforehand, you didn't reject.

Ah, more lying. That's not the "argument" I made at all. First because it wasn't an argument but a statement of fact, and I never mentioned or implied that them disagreeing with me had anything to do with it.

But keep at it. Anything to protect Trump.

WTF are you on about? Seriously, this is ridiculous. Let's recap, and please expand where you think I've misunderstood you.

Speak for yourself, Emily. There's nothing Trump would do to convince you to admit that he's done something wrong. You're commited to defending him on this issue, Yog-Sothoth knows why.

You're interpretation is wrong, my friend.

I won't be the least bit surprised if Trump is found guilty of a whole host of things. But I will wait for actual evidence and the judgement of someone with more complete knowledge. And it's hardly defending the asshat to take issue with such obvious spin. I mean, seriously, the news articles being referenced in most cases are so blatantly full of opinion and someone else's bias that it's impossible to miss unless you have already accepted the speculation as fact.

Trump is an ass. He's a bad leader. He's unqualified. But at present, there's been no solid evidence to support the accusations laid at his feet. When that evidence shows up, I'll very happily accept the conclusion. Until then, the pile of "skeptics" who accept obviously shoddy journalism as unquestionable truth simply because it agrees with their belief is seriously shocking.

You've ignored all the evidence presented so far, so you'll forgive me if I conclude that you'll never admit to having seen evidence, no matter what it is. This amounts to what I said: nothing will convince you that Trump has done something wrong.

No, I haven't ignored it all. There are a handful of things that I've accepted, although I don't always agree with all of the follow-on ifs.

For example, I accept that Comey felt he was being pressured by Trump with respect to loyalty. I also accept that Trump Jr. went to that meeting expecting to receive information that would paint Clinton in a bad light.

What I don't agree with is that Trump Jr. solicited such information. I also don't agree that it's open-and-shut evidence of collusion. From an objective point of view, it is possible, of course, but it's a weak case on its own.

There are a large number of facts that I accept as facts. I don't necessarily accept that they paint he picture being portrayed, and I definitely don't accept the massive pile of speculation, and "this thing might mean something else" and "a person said that this thing might mean another thing" constitute evidence of anything at all other than a fairly widespread hatred of Trump.

It's pretty unanimous that you have. So either you're not telling the truth, or you're not very good at introspection.

Ha ha ha ha ha... That's a funny joke there.

You: You've rejected everything!
Me: No, I haven't rejected everything. I've rejected most things, but I've accepted some things, for example (lists specifics). I've rejected things that (presents specific criteria used for rejection)
You: It's unanimous that you rejected everything, so you must be lying either to us or to yourself!

Really? That's what you're gonna go with? I expect better of you, Argumemnon.

How is my rephrasing incorrect? And how the hell do you end up justifying this absurd argument with your response:

Ah, and now you're downright lying. What an upgrade! Obviously the stuff you accepted beforehand, you didn't reject.

WTF in anything I've said can even remotely be construed as "downright lying"? If you admit that things I've accepted are things I've accepted... then clearly I haven't rejected all of it, and it's clearly not unanimous that I've rejected it all... so where is the lie in any of that?

Your entire approach is nonsensical.

Now let's move on to the second bit.

It's pretty unanimous that you have. So either you're not telling the truth, or you're not very good at introspection.

Say wut? It's not even ugly unanimous, let alone a more aesthetically pleasing form of unanimous. In any case, from what I can tell it's highly non-unanimous.

Yeah of course Trump supporters won't agree. I wasn't counting them.

Oh god, I laughed coke out of my nose. At least it was cherry flavored.

You're slipping, my friend. You just made the argument that people who don't agree with you don't count, and that the only people that count in your assessment are people that already agree with you.

100% of the people who agree with me, agree with me!

Want to try that again?

Ah, more lying. That's not the "argument" I made at all. First because it wasn't an argument but a statement of fact, and I never mentioned or implied that them disagreeing with me had anything to do with it.

But keep at it. Anything to protect Trump.

What argument do you think you were making? You claimed that it was unanimous that I've rejected everything... and yet you somehow try to spin me having accepted some things as me lying? When told that no, it's not unanimous (by someone other than me), you pretty much say that the people who disagree with your assessment of it being unanimous don't count... and when I point out the inanity of that argument, you again say I'm lying?

For the love of common decency, at least explain what the hell in any of that you think constitutes lying?

 

[NoahFence]

But that's impossible. His supporters assured us that he took the meeting to discuss Russian baby adoptions. Cute little babies!

Maybe Hillary was going to adopt!

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

For the love of common decency, at least explain what the hell in any of that you think constitutes lying?

He's totally jumped the shark. Although, tbh, I'm not sure he was ever on my side of the shark.

 

[Belz...]

Let's recap

I don't buy your claim for a second. For months you've been doing nothing but denying every bit of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that's been presented. But you protest. Oh, do you protest, that you're not defending Trump at all and that you're really this close to believing that he did something wrong, and yet you don't move an inch further than where you started regardless of stuff that's shown to you.

So no, I don't believe it.

How is my rephrasing incorrect?

I love that in response to me calling you on dishonesty, you highlight the wrong thing, even though I made clear what I was refering to. It's not really possible for me to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point.

What argument do you think you were making?

Didn't I just explain to you that I wasn't making an argument, on top of the fact that you misrepresented me?

You claimed that it was unanimous that I've rejected everything

Another lie. How you can quote me and then fail to read what you re-post is beyond my understanding.

 

[Belz...]

He's totally jumped the shark. Although, tbh, I'm not sure he was ever on my side of the shark.

Another dishonest poster. My meaning was clear. When I said "pretty" unanimous, obviously I didn't include people outside the forum, or on different planets, or people who will defend Trump no matter what. Those last ones are beyond logic and reason, so I exclude them from pretty much everything. Also note the presence of the word "pretty", which indicates that there may be a few exceptions. But of course, like Cat, you pretended that it wasn't there, just like now you pretend to understand nothing of what's been posted.

 

[Trebuchet]

Given that several people have claimed that was the topic of discussion, I tentatively accept it as such. I suppose it could have been about something else, but it certainly didn't seem to have borne fruit from the "damage Clinton" perspective.

And those people, including Trump Jr himself, have since admitted it was NOT about adoption but about Russia providing dirt on Hillary. They've ADMITTED it was actually about something else. Even if it didn't bear fruit, Trump Jr was actively trying to collude with the Russians and has admitted it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't buy your claim for a second. For months you've been doing nothing but denying every bit of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that's been presented. But you protest. Oh, do you protest, that you're not defending Trump at all and that you're really this close to believing that he did something wrong, and yet you don't move an inch further than where you started regardless of stuff that's shown to you.

So no, I don't believe it.



I love that in response to me calling you on dishonesty, you highlight the wrong thing, even though I made clear what I was refering to. It's not really possible for me to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Seriously. On what [expletive deleted] planet does your failure to believe me mean that I'm a liar? You're not calling me on dishonesty, I've done nothing dishonest, and I have not been lying about any of this. Your doubt doesn't imply a lack of integrity on my part.

Didn't I just explain to you that I wasn't making an argument, on top of the fact that you misrepresented me?



Another lie. How you can quote me and then fail to read what you re-post is beyond my understanding.

What the ever-loving-mother-[expletive deleted] are you talking about? Why can't you just explain what you mean instead of throwing out even more accusations of dishonesty? I really tire of your tactic here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Another dishonest poster. My meaning was clear. When I said "pretty" unanimous, obviously I didn't include people outside the forum, or on different planets, or people who will defend Trump no matter what. Those last ones are beyond logic and reason, so I exclude them from pretty much everything. Also note the presence of the word "pretty", which indicates that there may be a few exceptions. But of course, like Cat, you pretended that it wasn't there, just like now you pretend to understand nothing of what's been posted.

Holy crap. I don't think either sunmaster or myself remotely thought you were including anyone outside the forum or on different planets or anything else ridiculous like that. For crying out loud, that's absurd.

It's the "people who will defend Trump no matter what" that's at issue here. Because so far as I can tell, anyone who doesn't whole-heartedly believe believe all of the media presented as "evidence", regardless of how completely vapid and lacking in fact that media is... is someone that you will then categorize as belonging to that group - "people who will defend Trump no matter what".

Those then, are the people who disagree with you. Because the people who disagree with your view on this are the people who don't whole-heartedly believe that any obviously-spun opinion piece dripping speculation is reasonably considered "evidence".

The end result of that is quite clear: the people who disagree with your view are all lumped into "people who defend Trump"... and you have already declared that they don't count.

Therefore, the only people who count are the people who agree with you. That makes it pretty goddamned unanimous, isn't it? Amazing how that works.

It's incredibly shoddy logic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And those people, including Trump Jr himself, have since admitted it was NOT about adoption but about Russia providing dirt on Hillary. They've ADMITTED it was actually about something else. Even if it didn't bear fruit, Trump Jr was actively trying to collude with the Russians and has admitted it.

Okay, bear with me here. I didn't think this was that difficult. Let's talk about timeline.

BEFORE THE MEETING: Trump Jr. believed it to be about damaging information about Clinton.

There's no dispute here. He clearly set the meeting because he believed that was what he would get. Whether that constitutes collusion is a matter for the courts. It definitely constitutes him trying to get dirt of the competitor from a nefarious source. At the least, it's likely to run afoul of that "things of value from foreigners" bit.

I don't think, in my opinion, that he solicited that information. He didn't go out looking for it, it was offered to him. That's me being picky about terminology. This shouldn't surprise anyone who has interacted with me.

DURING THE MEETING: The lawyer didn't provide any intel about Clinton, but talked about the Magnitzky thingy.

So, let's go back to the damned post that set this current chain of absurd claims of dishonesty off, shall we?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/us/politics/trump-russia-investigation.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Donald Trump Jr. told Senate investigators on Thursday that he set up a June 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer because he was intrigued that she might have damaging information about Hillary Clinton, saying it was important to learn about Mrs. Clinton’s “fitness” to be president.

But, I thought it was about adoption:

In his statement, Donald Trump Jr. said: “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up.”

They are both true.

It is true that Trump Jr. set the meeting expecting to get dirt on Hillary.
It is ALSO true that the talked about adoption of Russian children.

The two aren't in conflict. By all accounts, they did NOT receive dirt on Clinton. They wanted it, and they set the meeting with the expectation of receiving it... but instead they actually got some lawyer blathering on about adoptions.

Why is this so hard to follow?

And for added benefit... that's pretty much what I said the first time, and it somehow turned into me being a dirty rotten lying Trump supporter. I'm still baffled.

They're both true. There's no conflict there.

They set the meeting up expecting damaging info about Clinton. What they got was a discussion about adoption.

Consider an analogy: I left the house around noon, to go to the gym. I ended up at the donut shop.

 

[Trebuchet]

So you agree that Trump Jr attempted to collude with the Russians to influence the election? Good for you!

 

[Belz...]

What the ever-loving-mother-[expletive deleted] are you talking about? Why can't you just explain what you mean instead of throwing out even more accusations of dishonesty? I really tire of your tactic here.

Amazing. So I explain something to you, you then say that you have no idea what I'm talking about, then I point out that I just explained it to you, and then you ask why I can't just explain it to you.

You are truly amazing.

Holy crap. I don't think either sunmaster or myself remotely thought you were including anyone outside the forum or on different planets or anything else ridiculous like that. For crying out loud, that's absurd.

Oh, there's another thing I don't believe for a second: that you don't know what hyperbole is.

Therefore, the only people who count are the people who agree with you. <snip>

It's incredibly shoddy logic.

Yeah, I agree, your logic sucks, because that doesn't follow at all. Plenty of people who don't defend Trump at all costs disagree with me. You're just mad that people are pointing out that you're part of the group that is defending Trump no matter what.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you agree that Trump Jr attempted to collude with the Russians to influence the election? Good for you!

Wow. That was unnecessarily condescending.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Amazing. So I explain something to you, you then say that you have no idea what I'm talking about, then I point out that I just explained it to you, and then you ask why I can't just explain it to you.

You are truly amazing.

Let me get this straight.
You explain a thing.
I tell you I don't understand.
You tell me that you already explained it.
I ask you to explain it again.

Clearly your initial explanation was lacking as far as I was concerned. So try it again.

Or don't. Go ahead and take your normal stance of "Well I already explained it so you're a liar" instead of actually trying to be clear. I mean, hey, if it helps you feel like you've won the internet, knock yourself out.

Oh, there's another thing I don't believe for a second: that you don't know what hyperbole is.

I know what hyperbole is. I fail to see where you've employed it?

Yeah, I agree, your logic sucks, because that doesn't follow at all. Plenty of people who don't defend Trump at all costs disagree with me. You're just mad that people are pointing out that you're part of the group that is defending Trump no matter what.

Except for the parts where I'm not defending Trump... and those parts don't count?

Ah, and now you're downright lying. What an upgrade! Obviously the stuff you accepted beforehand, you didn't reject.

Seriously, I have no idea what your argument is supposed to be. You said I reject everything. I gave specific examples of some things that I did not reject. You said that obviously I didn't reject things I'd already accepted.

But somehow that still means I reject everything?

WTF am I missing here, because this genuinely makes no sense to me.

 

[Belz...]

Clearly your initial explanation was lacking as far as I was concerned.

Ok here I go again: "It's unanimous that you rejected everything, so you must be lying either to us or to yourself!", which was your rewording, is a lie, since that is not what I said at all. And right after I pointed it out, I explained that rejecting everything about the Russian collusion story doesn't prevent you from thinking that Trump has flaws or has done bad things otherwise, so bringing up the fact that you think Trump has flaws or has done bad things otherwise doesn't counter my claim that you reject eveything about the Russian collusion story.

Furthermore, anything you accept now, you've accepted begridgingly and kicking and screaming. These things have been pointed out to you for months, and even now you're not accepting them fully.

Or don't. Go ahead and take your normal stance of "Well I already explained it so you're a liar" instead of actually trying to be clear.

Hey, another lie! Obviously, I wasn't saying that you are a liar because you don't understand the explanation. That would make no sense. Seriously, I cannot believe that you are "misunderstanding" so much stuff by accident.

I know what hyperbole is. I fail to see where you've employed it?

You don't think that me bringing up people from other planets was hyperbole? You have got to be kidding me.

Except for the parts where I'm not defending Trump...

You're essentially refusing to allow any of the evidence of collusion. How is that not defending him? That you're not defending him on other matters doesn't change the fact that you're defending him on this, going so far as to find excuses for him.

 

[sunmaster14]

Another dishonest poster. My meaning was clear. When I said "pretty" unanimous, obviously I didn't include people outside the forum, or on different planets, or people who will defend Trump no matter what. Those last ones are beyond logic and reason, so I exclude them from pretty much everything. Also note the presence of the word "pretty", which indicates that there may be a few exceptions. But of course, like Cat, you pretended that it wasn't there, just like now you pretend to understand nothing of what's been posted.

It's not even funny anymore. I actually feel pity.