Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    I see you ignored the rest of the post. That trump asked for help is a simple fact. He did it publicly. That Russia tried to help Trump win is also well documented and well known. I did not use the term collusion nor was there anything in my post that implied overt collusion. Neither did I use the term 'conman'. Those are all your words rogue use in response to my post (though originally used in response to JimL), and that context (my post) they do sound a bit unhinged as they have nothing to do with my response.

    Perhaps you could take the time to actually address the content of my post more in keeping with your demonstrated capacity for reasoned thought?

    Jim
    The reason that I ignored it was that this stuff has been explained to you in excruciating details multiple times. For instance, back when Trump "asked" the Russians for help, I (who was still quite unhappy about Trump had just become the Republican nominee) didn't need it explained that his comments were done sarcastically -- as a way of poking the MSM in the eye for mostly showing reluctance in investigating Hillary's missing 33,000 emails. The very fact that he did it in the middle of a public speech that was being recorded ought to be sufficient to clue in even the most jaded Trump hater that this was anything but a serious request. A serious request would be done in a discreet manner and very surreptitiously simply because you do not want everyone knowing about it.

    And if you object to how I respond then don't interject yourself into an exchange between others, especially starting off with "I'd call your comments here 'unhinged' in terms of their relation to reality."

    I'm always still in trouble again

    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      The reason that I ignored it was that this stuff has been explained to you in excruciating details multiple times. For instance, back when Trump "asked" the Russians for help, I (who was still quite unhappy about Trump had just become the Republican nominee) didn't need it explained that his comments were done sarcastically -- as a way of poking the MSM in the eye for mostly showing reluctance in investigating Hillary's missing 33,000 emails. The very fact that he did it in the middle of a public speech that was being recorded ought to be sufficient to clue in even the most jaded Trump hater that this was anything but a serious request. A serious request would be done in a discreet manner and very surreptitiously simply because you do not want everyone knowing about it.

      And if you object to how I respond then don't interject yourself into an exchange between others, especially starting off with "I'd call your comments here 'unhinged' in terms of their relation to reality."
      You still didn't answer to the substance of Jims post. That Trumps request for Russian help was just sarcasm is a subjective belief which of course is the stance his supporters would adopt, but regardless, that doesn't speak to the gist of his post. Trump is an authoritarian who is abusing his office, diregarding the Constitution and undermining democracy here and around the world. He's Putin's boy!

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
        That Russia tried to help Trump win is also well documented and well known.
        Fake news. It is "well-documented" that Russia maybe tried to disrupt the election with an underfunded and ineffectual social media campaign, but even the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed up by two staunch Trump critics, admitted that "the goal of our ‎adversaries was not to favor one party ‎over the other."
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          Scalia and Rehnquist's decisions, particularly the ones relating to establishment of religion, refute that.
          In what way? Please cite some specific examples--vague statements are insufficient.

          But let's suppose and accept that some of their decisions do ""interpret" the law to mean something other than what is written, or create new applications for a law that were never intended by the legislature." No judge is completely immune from such a thing--the question is which justices are far less prone to doing it. I would say that, by and large, "conservative" judges are less likely to do so than "liberal" judges.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Fake news. It is "well-documented" that Russia maybe tried to disrupt the election with an underfunded and ineffectual social media campaign, but even the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed up by two staunch Trump critics, admitted that "the goal of our ‎adversaries was not to favor one party ‎over the other."
            What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.
            A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
            George Bernard Shaw

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              Fake news. It is "well-documented" that Russia maybe tried to disrupt the election with an underfunded and ineffectual social media campaign, but even the Senate Intelligence Committee, headed up by two staunch Trump critics, admitted that "the goal of our ‎adversaries was not to favor one party ‎over the other."
              Even your own article notes:

              Source: above

              The January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) report found the Russian government sought to aid Trump’s “election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

              In the IC report, the NSA assessed the conclusion that Putin favored Trump and worked to get him elected only with a classification of “moderate confidence,” while the FBI and CIA gave it a “high confidence” rating.

              The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found:

              The difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

              © Copyright Original Source



              The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

              Source: second link

              Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Mueller at his hearing on Wednesday if the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning.”

              Mueller confirmed that they did.

              https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

              “Which candidate would that be?” Lofgren asked.

              “Well, it would be Trump,” Mueller said

              © Copyright Original Source



              Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

              https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/

              Source: Time

              The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: To damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.

              © Copyright Original Source



              The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

              https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201

              Source: wsj

              That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.

              © Copyright Original Source



              It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



              Jim
              Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2019, 02:42 PM.
              He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

              "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                The reason that I ignored it was that this stuff has been explained to you in excruciating details multiple times. For instance, back when Trump "asked" the Russians for help, I (who was still quite unhappy about Trump had just become the Republican nominee) didn't need it explained that his comments were done sarcastically -- as a way of poking the MSM in the eye for mostly showing reluctance in investigating Hillary's missing 33,000 emails. The very fact that he did it in the middle of a public speech that was being recorded ought to be sufficient to clue in even the most jaded Trump hater that this was anything but a serious request. A serious request would be done in a discreet manner and very surreptitiously simply because you do not want everyone knowing about it.

                And if you object to how I respond then don't interject yourself into an exchange between others, especially starting off with "I'd call your comments here 'unhinged' in terms of their relation to reality."
                I would think a person of your skills would take the time to respond to the substance of it - not pick off ancillary issues. It's beneath you to treat a post like some others here might do it. You're better than that - yes?

                As to your point, His request for help can not be considered merely sarcastic given the context and his extreme, well voiced desire to pin Clinton's abuse of the email server on her. That was a real request for help from anyone that might have access to the data. And given the infamous Trump meeting hoping to get dirt on Hillary from the Russians - even more so. There is no way that was mere sarcasm. He knew they were looking to help him out. He was giving them a suggestion as to how they might be able to accomplish that goal.

                As for your hypothetical about what a serious request would be. This is Donald Trump. "I can shoot someone in broad daylight and my people will still follow me" Donald Trump. Unfortunately and as has been shown time and time again, Donald Trump doesn't need to secure that kind of backdoor help in a discreet manner.



                Jim
                Last edited by oxmixmudd; 09-15-2019, 03:03 PM.
                He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                  What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.
                  Here's the exact quote:

                  "I will tell you this, Russia, if you're listening: I hiope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will be rewarded mightly by our press."

                  First of all, Trump made this statement after it was common knowledge that Hillary was using an unauthorized, unsecured private server to conduct classified state business, that the server was compromised by foreign governments, and that Hillary had gone to great lengths to prevent the data on those servers from being scrutinized by law enforcement, including the extraordinary step of using special security software to scrub 30,000 emails from the hard drives and render them unrecoverable AFTER the information had been subpoenaed!

                  Secondly, does it really have to be pointed out that Trump was making an obvious joke? It was more a poke in the eye of the mainstream media who had been studiously disinterested in the story as well as drawing attention to the fact that Hillary had obstructed justice by deleting 30,000 emails.
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    Even your own article notes:

                    Source: above

                    The January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) report found the Russian government sought to aid Trump’s “election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

                    In the IC report, the NSA assessed the conclusion that Putin favored Trump and worked to get him elected only with a classification of “moderate confidence,” while the FBI and CIA gave it a “high confidence” rating.

                    The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found:

                    The difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

                    Source: second link

                    Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Mueller at his hearing on Wednesday if the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning.”

                    Mueller confirmed that they did.

                    https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

                    “Which candidate would that be?” Lofgren asked.

                    “Well, it would be Trump,” Mueller said

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

                    https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/

                    Source: Time

                    The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: To damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

                    https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201

                    Source: wsj

                    That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.

                    © Copyright Original Source



                    It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



                    Jim
                    In fact, a deep dive into the Mueller report shows just how weak the Russian conspiracy theory really is, and how little evidence there is to support any of the claims being bandied about by liberals...

                    While the 448-page Mueller report found no conspiracy between Donald Trump's campaign and Russia, it offered voluminous details to support the sweeping conclusion that the Kremlin worked to secure Trump's victory. The report claims that the interference operation occurred "principally" on two fronts: Russian military intelligence officers hacked and leaked embarrassing Democratic Party documents, and a government-linked troll farm orchestrated a sophisticated and far-reaching social media campaign that denigrated Hillary Clinton and promoted Trump.

                    But a close examination of the report shows that none of those headline assertions are supported by the report’s evidence or other publicly available sources. They are further undercut by investigative shortcomings and the conflicts of interest of key players involved:
                    • The report uses qualified and vague language to describe key events, indicating that Mueller and his investigators do not actually know for certain whether Russian intelligence officers stole Democratic Party emails, or how those emails were transferred to WikiLeaks.
                    • The report's timeline of events appears to defy logic. According to its narrative, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange announced the publication of Democratic Party emails not only before he received the documents but before he even communicated with the source that provided them.
                    • There is strong reason to doubt Mueller’s suggestion that an alleged Russian cutout called Guccifer 2.0 supplied the stolen emails to Assange.
                    • Mueller’s decision not to interview Assange – a central figure who claims Russia was not behind the hack – suggests an unwillingness to explore avenues of evidence on fundamental questions.
                    • U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
                    • Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.
                    • Mueller’s report conspicuously does not allege that the Russian government carried out the social media campaign. Instead it blames, as Mueller said in his closing remarks, "a private Russian entity" known as the Internet Research Agency (IRA).
                    • Mueller also falls far short of proving that the Russian social campaign was sophisticated, or even more than minimally related to the 2016 election. As with the collusion and Russian hacking allegations, Democratic officials had a central and overlooked hand in generating the alarm about Russian social media activity.
                    • John Brennan, then director of the CIA, played a seminal and overlooked role in all facets of what became Mueller’s investigation: the suspicions that triggered the initial collusion probe; the allegations of Russian interference; and the intelligence assessment that purported to validate the interference allegations that Brennan himself helped generate. Yet Brennan has since revealed himself to be, like CrowdStrike and Steele, hardly a neutral party -- in fact a partisan with a deep animus toward Trump.

                    None of this means that the Mueller report's core finding of "sweeping and systematic" Russian government election interference is necessarily false. But his report does not present sufficient evidence to substantiate it.

                    https://www.realclearinvestigations....ng_claims.html
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                      Even your own article notes:

                      Source: above

                      The January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) report found the Russian government sought to aid Trump’s “election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.”

                      In the IC report, the NSA assessed the conclusion that Putin favored Trump and worked to get him elected only with a classification of “moderate confidence,” while the FBI and CIA gave it a “high confidence” rating.

                      The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found:

                      The difference in confidence levels between the NSA and the CIA and FBI on the assessment that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances” appropriately represents analytic differences and was reached in a professional and transparent manner.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      The Mueller report, subsequent to the above, notes that the Russians clearly were trying to help Trump get elected. Further, that was precisely Mueller Testimony before Congress in July of THIS year.

                      Source: second link

                      Rep. Zoe Lofgren, a senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, asked Mueller at his hearing on Wednesday if the Russian government “perceived it would benefit from one of the candidates winning.”

                      Mueller confirmed that they did.

                      https://www.rollcall.com/news/congre...allenging-barr

                      “Which candidate would that be?” Lofgren asked.

                      “Well, it would be Trump,” Mueller said

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      Time, Politico, The Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and more all reporting at various times various bits of evidence that show the Russian interference tactics were aimed at supporting in no small part the election efforts of Donald Trump.

                      https://time.com/5565991/russia-infl...2016-election/

                      Source: Time

                      The goal, as determined by the U.S. intelligence community and backed up by evidence gathered by Special Counsel Robert Mueller: To damage the Clinton campaign, boost Trump’s chances and sow distrust in American democracy overall.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      The wall street journal article is very detailed but concludes the same as regards to which candidate they were rooting for:

                      https://www.wsj.com/articles/putin-h...on-11555666201

                      Source: wsj

                      That has been the unanimous view of the intelligence community for nearly 2½ years. But it is laid out in unprecedented detail across nearly 200 pages of the special counsel’s report, which also describes Russian efforts to forge ties with members of Trump’s campaign to further the Kremlin’s interference goals.

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      It is well known, and well documented, that the Russian Interference included efforts to undermine the Clinton campaign and efforts to bolster the Trump campaign.



                      Jim
                      Not to mention that much of that intel came from a Russian source working for the CIA with close contact to the upper echelons of the Russian government and to Putin himself, a spy who the CIA recently extracted out of Russia for fear of his safety.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                        What's fake about it? He's on VIDEO saying "Russia if you're listening...." VIDEO.
                        Death of the humor center of the brain is one of the most distinctive and deleterious effects of TDS.
                        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                        Beige Nationalist.

                        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                          In what way? Please cite some specific examples--vague statements are insufficient.
                          Example: the decision that allowing an official monument to bear the 10 commandments, which are relevant to only a few religions, does not pertain to establishment of those religions.

                          But let's suppose and accept that some of their decisions do ""interpret" the law to mean something other than what is written, or create new applications for a law that were never intended by the legislature." No judge is completely immune from such a thing--the question is which justices are far less prone to doing it. I would say that, by and large, "conservative" judges are less likely to do so than "liberal" judges.
                          I would disagree - I suspect the tendency to interpret laws according to preference rather than wording is a behaviour control issue, and conservatives tend to impose their values on others more than liberals do.
                          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                          mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                          Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                          Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Sorry, but playing semantics won't save you from your ignorant flub.
                            As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own naivete and failure to recognise subtle distinctions.
                            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                            Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Ignorant Roy View Post
                              As usual you're assuming others' ignorance when the fault is your own naivete and failure to recognise subtle distinctions.
                              Right.

                              It couldn't be that you not being an American genuinely thought the US judiciary had the power to change laws (since, you know, that's what you actually said) and then tried to cover for your ignorance by playing little semantic games.

                              It would be so much easier if you just said, "Huh, I didn't know that. My mistake."
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ignorant Roy View Post
                                Example: the decision that allowing an official monument to bear the 10 commandments, which are relevant to only a few religions, does not pertain to establishment of those religions.
                                That is, in fact, a very literal and conservative interpretation of the First Amendment since the prohibition is against the government from enacting laws that would establish or restrict the practice of religion. There is nothing that says that the government can't recognize or even prefer one religion over the others, just as long as the citizens are not compelled by law to do the same.

                                So as an example of judicial activism, this is a fail.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seer, Today, 11:32 AM
                                0 responses
                                6 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seer
                                by seer
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 09:11 AM
                                0 responses
                                14 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, Today, 07:28 AM
                                1 response
                                26 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 06:44 AM
                                13 responses
                                41 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by seer, Today, 06:17 AM
                                5 responses
                                32 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Faber
                                by Faber
                                 
                                Working...
                                X