The Joe Biden thread

[Bill the Cat]

Go to the Flynn thread for those specifics. I'm only looking at how much Biden is becoming a liability for the Dems now during the election. Not only is his mind not working, not only is he a potential rapist, but now his name may be floating around a potential senate investigation. That's a whole lot of ammo to give to the Trump campaign team that I don't think the Dems are going to risk.

And CNN poling shows him behind Trump in several battleground states. If that trend continues, do not be surprised if Biden's current protection is abandoned by the DNC.

[Cow Poke]

I'm sure RWNJ will love this. My question is whether anyone on here can specifically indicate what was wrong with unmasking Flynn who, *as of this moment*...

Well, besides it being a felony with a 10 year prison sentence, I guess it's just another day in the Democratic party.

[DivineOb]

Well, besides it being a felony with a 10 year prison sentence, I guess it's just another day in the Democratic party.

You're going to have to try harder than that CP. What specific crime was committed and by who?

[Cow Poke]

You're going to have to try harder than that CP. What specific crime was committed and by who?

I don't have to try anything - this is unfolding as we speak. IF (and we don't know that yet) any of those who requested the unmasking relayed any of that information to the press, than THAT is the crime. Did you miss that the first time?

Maybe it's referring to the fact that Obama and people in his administration, on their way out, were asking for the unmasking of persons - which would include Flynn.

Asking for the unmasking wouldn't be the crime - but making those names public would, supposedly be criminal

[DivineOb]

I don't have to try anything - this is unfolding as we speak. IF (and we don't know that yet) any of those who requested the unmasking relayed any of that information to the press, than THAT is the crime. Did you miss that the first time?

I missed it because I replied before your edit :).

In any case, ok we'll see if it can be shown that Obama or Biden (of all people) leaked this info.

[Cow Poke]

I missed it because I replied before your edit :).

The edit stamps don't support that, but, hey, if it's all ya got...

In any case, ok we'll see if it can be shown that Obama or Biden (of all people) leaked this info.

EGGzackly what I said.

[DivineOb]

The edit stamps don't support that, but, hey, if it's all ya got...

I edited that post to add the second sentence because I thought the first one just pointing out your edit after deciding to acknowledge what you had actually edited yours to say.

Geez louise man. Go dig through the BBS logs if you want to call me a liar on this.

[Cow Poke]

I edited that post to add the second sentence because I thought the first one just pointing out your edit after deciding to acknowledge what you had actually edited yours to say.

Sure

Geez louise man. Go dig through the BBS logs if you want to call me a liar on this.

I have been very calmly responding to your questions and comments. Maybe you could tone it down just a tad?

[DivineOb]

Sure



I have been very calmly responding to your questions and comments. Maybe you could tone it down just a tad?

And I appreciate that fact. But you implied that I wasn't being honest and I'm not ok with that :).

Everyone is welcome to comb over my posts and find a single lie (of commission).

[Cow Poke]

And I appreciate that fact. But you implied that I wasn't being honest and I'm not ok with that :).

No, you inferred that.

Everyone is welcome to comb over my posts and find a single lie (of commission).

And you're certainly welcome to assume alleged facts not in evidence.

[DivineOb]

No, you inferred that.



And you're certainly welcome to assume alleged facts not in evidence.

Let's not do this dance. Pointing to something and saying "This fact doesn't agree with your claim," especially when that fact is the only piece of evidence readily available to observers (who don't have access to BBS logs) has a pretty obvious meaning.

Regardless, thank you for clarifying what Obamagate is claiming -- not that the unmasking was improper but that the leak is the improper act. Even if Obama wanted that fact leaked there is no way it will be tied directly to him.

[Cow Poke]

Let's not do this dance.

Feel free to stop at any time.

Pointing to something and saying "This fact doesn't agree with your claim," especially when that fact is the only piece of evidence readily available to observers (who don't have access to BBS logs) has a pretty obvious meaning.

What 'BBS logs' do I have access to that others don't? And I didn't assume at all you were lying - I don't make that claim easily. I assumed you were mistaken or confused.

Regardless, thank you for clarifying what Obamagate is claiming -- not that the unmasking was improper but that the leak is the improper act. Even if Obama wanted that fact leaked there is no way it will be tied directly to him.

Thank you for getting back on point.

[Cow Poke]

...(who don't have access to BBS logs)....

Just out of curiosity, maybe I'm ignorant on this .... can you not see the tag at the bottom of a post that's been edited? Where it says, for example....


Last edited by DivineOb; Today at 12:46 PM.

[DivineOb]

Just out of curiosity, maybe I'm ignorant on this .... can you not see the tag at the bottom of a post that's been edited? Where it says, for example....


Last edited by DivineOb; Today at 12:46 PM.

Yes, I see that. Edits made very soon after a post don't have such a tag (as with your post). Because I made my edit outside that window I do have that tag.

Whatever logs the BBS keeps would sure give the timestamp of my original post, my original post, your edit, and my edit (though we already have that one).

Writing that out makes me sound more paranoid than I mean to come across as so I'll accept that you didn't mean things the way I took and and move on.

[Cow Poke]

Yes, I see that. Edits made very soon after a post don't have such a tag (as with your post). Because I made my edit outside that window I do have that tag.

Whatever logs the BBS keeps would sure give the timestamp of my original post, my original post, your edit, and my edit (though we already have that one).

Even if I DO have access to that, I wouldn't have a clue where to find it.

Writing that out makes me sound more paranoid than I mean to come across as so I'll accept that you didn't mean things the way I took and and move on.

Very good - yeah, I think the window in which you can edit without the "edit tag" being added is pretty short, and I couldn't find a response of yours that was closer than 30 minutes or so -- well outside that window. Maybe I wasn't looking at the right post, but the responses appeared WELL outside the 15 minute (or whatever) window. (It's actually changed several times since I've been here)

Bottom line - it never crossed my mind that you were lying - just confused or in error.