Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
Look, I appreciate that you want to use me as a foil to make yourself look more objective, but, ... well, actually I don't appreciate it.

In the context I made that statement, it was absolutely reasonable. Gathering evidence of financial crimes does not require no-knock search warrants in the middle of the night. I would have thought this was easy to understand, but maybe you need a financial background to fully appreciate how difficult it is to cover up financial improprieties by flushing a baggie down the toilet.
Click to expand...

There couldn't possibly have been any physical evidence I guess. Nothing on a computer?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Look, I appreciate that you want to use me as a foil to make yourself look more objective, but, ... well, actually I don't appreciate it.

In the context I made that statement, it was absolutely reasonable. Gathering evidence of financial crimes does not require no-knock search warrants in the middle of the night. I would have thought this was easy to understand, but maybe you need a financial background to fully appreciate how difficult it is to cover up financial improprieties by flushing a baggie down the toilet.
Click to expand...

Doesn't it depend what the financial crimes are? If it is a minor fraud, maybe not.

If it involves links to organised crime, then yes they might.
 
Argumemnon said:
Did you just admit that you're not looking objective?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's any secret that I'm politically right of center, and that I support the Republican party (which is not the same thing as being thrilled with everything they do). I never tried to deny that. I'm just saying that it looks to me as if Emily is going out of her way to call me out in order to restore her reputation as a centrist. The criticism that she is defending Trump is probably getting under her skin. Quite understandably, since her defense, such as it is, is merely an expression of critical reasoning, and not actually support for Trump's policies or rhetoric.
 
Donald Trump legal defense funds
This is turning out really swell.

As a further thought, can Donald Trump use the 2020 re-election fund to pay for lawyers to save his first term? :D
 
Tero said:
Donald Trump legal defense funds
This is turning out really swell.

As a further thought, can Donald Trump use the 2020 re-election fund to pay for lawyers to save his first term? :D
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but he is doing so. Some of his defense funds come from the RNC and others from his reelection campaign, far as I've heard.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
sunmaster14 said:
And, yes, I believe we will find out shortly who is right. I'd wager that CNN will be making an embarrassing correction to its headline and subheadline in the next few days.
Click to expand...

sunmaster14 said:
They'll probably try to sneak in a retraction on late Friday afternoon. That's what the NY Times would do.
Click to expand...

Friday afternoon is quickly approaching with no correction in sight...
 
President Trump early Friday called reports of Kremlin-linked groups buying Facebook ads to sway the 2016 election part of a "Russia hoax."

"The Russia hoax continues, now it's ads on Facebook. What about the totally biased and dishonest Media coverage in favor of Crooked Hillary?" Trump tweeted referring to former Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

Facebook has told investigators that it discovered thousands of political ads published on its platform over the past two years were linked to fake accounts based in Russia.

Alex Stamos, Facebook’s chief security officer, made the revelation in a blog post Wednesday. Stamos said that 470 inauthentic accounts spent about $100,000 to buy roughly 3,000 ads. He added that the accounts have since been suspended.

On Thursday Facebook announced it would turn over the ads to congressional investigators.

Trump has expressed his doubts of Russian interference in the 2016 election, often suggesting Democrats are using the Russia probe as an excuse for losing the presidency.
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...russia-hoax-continues-now-its-ads-on-facebook

Yup Russia definitively did not support Trump or even interfere in the election in any way. It's all a witch hunt! A hoax! Russians didn't buy those ads it was democrats trying to defame the friendly Russians! BAD!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Friday afternoon is quickly approaching with no correction in sight...
Click to expand...

It may be that CNN is even more dishonest than I had already thought. No matter though. I think it's clear now that Facebook was not in fact served with a search warrant. Do you disagree?
 
sunmaster14 said:
It may be that CNN is even more dishonest than I had already thought. No matter though. I think it's clear now that Facebook was not in fact served with a search warrant. Do you disagree?
Click to expand...
Well, fake news never prints retractions, do they? They just cover it up with more fake stories about something else. And look what's on CNN right now - stories about something else!
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Is that even possible ?



I have seen claims they were served a warrant, and no one but you is calling that fake news.
Click to expand...

I have never seen a claim that wasn't derivative of CNN's claim (which only appeared in the headline and sub-headline of that single article on Sep 15). Have you?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
The claims I have seen refer to WSJ and CNN.
Click to expand...

Right, although WSJ never made the claim. Only CNN did, and only by way of headline. Nothing in CNN's article actually made the claim either.

Now let me ask you something. Do you believe that Mueller served a search warrant on Facebook? If so, would you like to bet money with me on it?
 
sunmaster14 said:
Look, I appreciate that you want to use me as a foil to make yourself look more objective, but, ... well, actually I don't appreciate it.
Click to expand...
That was unnecessarily offensive. I actually do object to your approach , and on the same grounds with which I object to most of the non-evidentiary conclusions that have been reached by others.

sunmaster14 said:
In the context I made that statement, it was absolutely reasonable.
Click to expand...
It makes a reasonable hypothesis. But 'reasonable' by itself isn't evidence, and a reasonable hypothesis shouldn't be considered sufficient to reach a conclusion.


sunmaster14 said:
Gathering evidence of financial crimes does not require no-knock search warrants in the middle of the night. I would have thought this was easy to understand, but maybe you need a financial background to fully appreciate how difficult it is to cover up financial improprieties by flushing a baggie down the toilet.
Click to expand...
No, I follow that part. And I agree that these are scare tactics. What I don't agree with (and quite strongly at that) is your conclusion that scare tactics and fishy behavior are sufficient for you to confidently conclude anything other than "that was odd".
 
sunmaster14 said:
I don't think it's any secret that I'm politically right of center, and that I support the Republican party (which is not the same thing as being thrilled with everything they do). I never tried to deny that. I'm just saying that it looks to me as if Emily is going out of her way to call me out in order to restore her reputation as a centrist. The criticism that she is defending Trump is probably getting under her skin. Quite understandably, since her defense, such as it is, is merely an expression of critical reasoning, and not actually support for Trump's policies or rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's getting under my skin... but it has been for months now. But your insinuation is off base. It's just as much well-poisoning as what's been done by those who've dismissed be as a Trump Supporter. You've simply taken the position that EC can't possibly have an actual objection and an actual point with respect to your methodology... EC can only be doing this so she looks better. It's just as baseless an accusation, and just as lacking in logic and objectivity. It's not materially different then Argumemnon condemning me as a liar with every other breath :rolleyes:

I end up agreeing with you on somewhere around 60% of topics. I end up agreeing with Argumemnon on around 60% of topics. You and Argumemnon agree on maybe 40% of topics. But throw politics into the mix, and it's magically all 'us' and 'them', and it's awfully convenient to forget that the other person shares a fair number of your own views.

ETA: Your casting of my post as an attempt to clear my name also leaves me with the impression that you believe I'm a Trump supporter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom