Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 154
  1. #121
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    How could such knowledge of possible futures be known?
    It's more of an alternate past. Since Trump is Putin's bitch (per the Mueller report) and Kim Jun has made a complete fool of him, well, we have that. The idea that Hillary would've allowed herself to be blackmailed or that she would've been protected by, let's say, a democratically controlled senate is just not believable...let alone a republican controlled legislature, no way. So there's no way she would've alienated our NATO allies while sucking Putin's ass. Also no reason to believe there wouldn't have been a similar continued stance against North Korea, with alterations as the situations developed of course, as during the Obama Administration.

    More and deeper sanctions against Russia and its corrupt business leaders for sure. I doubt the revelations that Russia attacked us would've become known, at least to the extent we now know, or that it would've been a big deal (since Hillary won ===> they failed). At least not in the open, in intelligence circles it would've been taken seriously (with the Donald, no).

    Altogether, a stronger America embraced by its natural and longstanding allies and not the laughing stock of the world = not sucking.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #122
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    It's more of an alternate past. Since Trump is Putin's bitch (per the Mueller report) and Kim Jun has made a complete fool of him, well, we have that. The idea that Hillary would've allowed herself to be blackmailed or that she would've been protected by, let's say, a democratically controlled senate is just not believable...let alone a republican controlled legislature, no way. So there's no way she would've alienated our NATO allies while sucking Putin's ass. Also no reason to believe there wouldn't have been a similar continued stance against North Korea, with alterations as the situations developed of course, as during the Obama Administration.

    More and deeper sanctions against Russia and its corrupt business leaders for sure. I doubt the revelations that Russia attacked us would've become known, at least to the extent we now know, or that it would've been a big deal (since Hillary won ===> they failed). At least not in the open, in intelligence circles it would've been taken seriously (with the Donald, no).

    Altogether, a stronger America embraced by its natural and longstanding allies and not the laughing stock of the world = not sucking.
    IOW, in your opinion she would have been a great president given the chance...

  3. #123
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,756
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Since Cowboy declined to offer support for his claim that Clinton "wouldn't have sucked as a president" we can consider that claim retracted. Please do not make it again without support.

    Additionally, Cowboy you added an additional claim that you need to support. Please support, Challenge to support a claim. that the Mueller report defines Trump as Putin's bitch. Of course we realize that term is being used an idiom, but sufficed to say, it means that Putin has some influence over Trump. Where, exactly, did the Mueller report say that.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #124
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Since Cowboy declined to offer support for his claim that Clinton "wouldn't have sucked as a president" we can consider that claim retracted. Please do not make it again without support.
    Support for Belthazor's challenge was not required since I clarified that I was not attempting to predict the future "knowledge of possible futures" from before the election. They're free to challenge again. I stand by my statement.

    ---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    it means that Putin has some influence over Trump
    [/COLOR]
    Not necessarily.

    As far as the Mueller report:

    "Russian military intelligence, the GRU, had successfully hacked into the emails of the Democratic Party during the campaign and orchestrated their leak at opportune moments. The operation had hammered the reputation of both Clinton and the Democratic Party while deflecting attention from embarrassing news about Putin’s preferred candidate, Trump. The same group had even made digital forays into state election systems before the vote, possibly practicing for more disruptive future activities.

    At the same time, the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had run a large campaign from St. Petersburg to amplify divisions within the American electorate, using fake accounts, bots, and trolls to catalyze polarizing actions by our own citizens — all the while hiding its hand and appearing to be organically American.

    Although Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report, released on April 18, said he did not “establish” the existence of conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, there was a convergence of pre-election interests: “The Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, [while] the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”"https://www.vox.com/2019/4/25/185164...-2016-election (that quote is from the bottom of page 1 of the Mueller report)

    We can add to that the Steele Dossier (see my thread) and Trump's sycophantic behavior towards Putin. Since Trump is known for engaging in suspect behavior with unsavory characters in notorious types of businesses. (I'll also add here the stonewalling around the financial investigations - I remember him mentioning in a speech selling "40-50 million" dollar apartments to russians).

    Therefore, an instance of actual blackmailing ("I know this, do what I say or I'll release it") is not necessary. It's enough for Trump to think that something is out there and to behave accordingly.

    I'd add that that's also a violation of his oath of office (his knowing that he's engaged in questionable activities that could be used to compromise him).
    Last edited by CowboyX; April 30th, 2019 at 12:45 PM.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  5. #125
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,756
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Support for Belthazor's challenge was not required since I clarified that I was not attempting to predict the future "knowledge of possible futures" from before the election. They're free to challenge again. I stand by my statement.

    You were challenged to support this statement: "Well, she wouldn't have sucked as president." You offered no support for that claim. Your attempt to reframe it as an "alternate past" does nothing to change that fact. Thus, that claim has been retracted. Continued use of that claim, absent support, is a rule violation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    As far as the Mueller report:
    ...
    “The Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, [while] the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”"...

    This is not support for the claim you made. The existence of shared interests is not an exercise of power or control over someone. Thus that claim is retracted until it can be supported. Do not make a claim that the Mueller report defines Putin in a position of power over Trump unless you can support it from that document.

    You've been given a lot of leeway in this thread and in others related to this subject for claims without support or intervention. Please be a bit more thorough in supporting claims of this nature in the future. ODN is not here to be your place to vent, it is a place to post coherent and sourced arguments.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #126
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    (my apologies Even for walking all over your thread here, but you seem to have left the bldg at the moment anyway...)

    Not needed. This thread is our thread, this thread is your thread....



    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Hmmm, I suppose that could be true, but not where I was at. I am not trying to make a semantic difference here, but I think we are talking about totally different aspects. I have actually had a liberal say that the Clinton's were incapable of "doing wrong". I don't see that has changed, however, the younger generation is getting involved now and I have heard a growing change of guard/new ideas/not a career politician/different issues talk out of some liberal circles.

    I think most liberals think Hillary was "robbed" of her much deserved time at president as the most intellectual woman in America (aside: my last girlfriend would not support her after that comment became common…).

    Yes, partisans believe Hillary was robbed. Not all liberals are partisans. Not all partisans are liberal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I totally agree politics can be/is divisive by nature, but the reason I have been at ODN is because reason can prevail (at least to a lurker if not some of the participants). When Apok wrote not tooo long ago one of his regrets was policing the site so hard, but I disagree. You are correct a number of members over the yrs use ad homs as a tool during the discussion to try to distract from weak argumentation. I appreciate it when ODN staff steps in and keeps these things from progressing to the point of, well most discussion boards on the net!

    Yes (though I love wood working tools and would rather call him some thing else.....) I agree with you here too. the Donald is a nut, but he is president. I think he may make some good progress with China though we shall see. He is not the "same ole" career type politician we have had in my lifetime. In a couple yrs "we" can choose who is the next president. Congress is a bigger problem IMHO...

    "Congress and diapers need to be changed often and for the same reasons"
    (unknown)

    ---------- Post added at 05:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Ok, Trump is a prick. Better? I'd call him a moron, but I have other theories. No. One theory isn't that he is a secret genius. But, I do believe his communication style, while coarse and bewildering, is really well-tuned to 21st century. Just a quick example, and I know this is off-topic. When Biden rolled out his campaign, he left some bait out there for Trump in the form of Charlottesville. Ok, as expected, Trump took the bait. But Biden is a 20th century communicator and too subtle for today's rapid news cycle. So, the story came and went. Biden didn't really keep it going because that would require a different skillset. Trump has that skillset. On immigration, Trump declared a national emergency. Was it? Debatable. However, every news outlet ran with it either calling him a liar or defending his position. And Trump kept yelling it. And it kept the story in the news. Now, whether you think the Southern border is an emergency or not does not matter. People are talking about it and thinking about it and the more they do, the more likely they are to either agree with him or, at the least, gain some tolerance for his position. Trump wins. He has a knack for that sort of carnival barking required to get any sort of legs on a news story today. His schtick just kind of works even if it is often painful to watch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    An old man that walks to the park everyday to feed the pigeons thinks he is just interacting with nature in a basically harmless way that helps the birds. He doesn't always see the pigeon poop all over everybody's cars and the other issues that it causes.

    Perhaps we should put up a sign like at the zoo:

    "Please don't feed the trolls"
    Maybe.

    ---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "some people say..."
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  7. #127
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Yes, partisans believe Hillary was robbed. Not all liberals are partisans. Not all partisans are liberal.
    Interesting.
    While I suppose blanket generalizations are nearly always false, I wonder the % of liberals that don't think Hillary was "robbed"?

    ---------- Post added at 06:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Ok, Trump is a prick. Better?
    Sorry, I didn't mean to make a semantic issue, I was going for levity...

    "Col Potter go for joke....No get"
    MASH

    ---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I'd call him a moron, but I have other theories. No. One theory isn't that he is a secret genius. But, I do believe his communication style, while coarse and bewildering, is really well-tuned to 21st century. Just a quick example, and I know this is off-topic. When Biden rolled out his campaign, he left some bait out there for Trump in the form of Charlottesville. Ok, as expected, Trump took the bait. But Biden is a 20th century communicator and too subtle for today's rapid news cycle. So, the story came and went. Biden didn't really keep it going because that would require a different skillset. Trump has that skillset.
    The Donald does work the media pretty damn hard (network and social)!!
    Though he now has to play by different rules than he is used to and I'm thinking he has miscalculated to what degree.

    Aside:
    I find it odd Biden is the current front runner?

  8. #128
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    You were challenged to support this statement: "Well, she wouldn't have sucked as president." You offered no support for that claim. Your attempt to reframe it as an "alternate past" does nothing to change that fact. Thus, that claim has been retracted. Continued use of that claim, absent support, is a rule violation.
    "How could such knowledge of possible futures be known?
    Support please (thingy)….."

    This is the challenge I was presented with. I never claimed that.

    ---------- Post added at 02:49 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post

    This is not support for the claim you made. The existence of shared interests is not an exercise of power or control over someone. Thus that claim is retracted until it can be supported. Do not make a claim that the Mueller report defines Putin in a position of power over Trump unless you can support it from that document.
    Sure, I'll amend my statement to included what I've already quoted from the Mueller report (from the introduction so it would also include all of the supporting material in the report) to include everything else we already know about Trump and his entanglements. So where I said "per the Mueller report" it now says "per the Mueller report and everything else we know so far". (which I laid out in post 124)

    ---------- Post added at 03:00 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post



    I take it that's your victory lap after you got your big brother to beat me up. How cute.

    ---------- Post added at 03:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post

    But where are the charges for illegally colluding with Russia to win the election? Nowhere to be seen! They don't exist. Stone, for example, is charged with lying to federal investigators and witness tampering, things that happened after the investigation by Mueller began, and having nothing to do with any supposed collusion with Russia.

    The only immoral collusion I see going on is between Democrats, the media and Mueller to make the public think that Trump did something illegal to win the election.
    https://www.justsecurity.org/63838/g...-on-collusion/
    "a significant amount of relevant information was unavailable to Mueller due to four factors. First, as the Report states, “several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office,” and “those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference.” Second, President Trump’s interference in the investigation also appears to have stymied the investigation. A key example is Paul Manafort’s failure to cooperate with the Special Counsel because he was apparently led to believe that President Trump would pardon him. Third, some individuals used encrypted communications or deleted their communications. Fourth, some of the individuals who “cooperated” with the investigation (e.g., Steve Bannon) appear to have been deceptive or not fully forthcoming in their dealings with the Special Counsel. Several individuals failed to recall the content of important conversations with Trump or other Campaign associates. The Report states, “Even when individuals testified or agreed to be interviewed, they sometimes provided information that was false or incomplete.” [Those harmless "process crimes" - CowboyX]

    It is important to keep in mind that the Report’s analysis is about whether or not to prosecute someone for a crime. Furthermore, statements that the investigation “did not establish” something occurred are not the same as saying there was “no evidence” that it occurred. The Report has clear ways of saying when the investigation found no evidence. It conveys the absence of any evidence when, for example, it states the investigation “did not identify evidence” or “did not uncover evidence” that something occurred. Even then, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. When there is “evidence of absence,” the Special Counsel was willing to say the investigation “established” effectively that something did not occur. For example, the Report states that the investigation “established” that interactions between the Russian Ambassador and Campaign officials at certain locations were “brief, public, and non-substantive.” That finding excludes the possibility that something more nefarious occurred in those particular interactions. A keen eye on these kinds of distinctions is important when reading the Report itself.

    I. Summary of Major Findings

    The redacted Mueller Report documents a series of activities that show strong evidence of collusion. Or, more precisely, it provides significant evidence that Trump Campaign associates coordinated with, cooperated with, encouraged, or gave support to the Russia/WikiLeaks election interference activities. The Report documents the following actions (each of which is analyzed in detail in Part II):

    1. Trump was receptive to a Campaign national security adviser’s (George Papadopoulos) pursuit of a back channel to Putin.

    2. Kremlin operatives provided the Campaign a preview of the Russian plan to distribute stolen emails.

    3. The Trump Campaign chairman and deputy chairman (Paul Manafort and Rick Gates) knowingly shared internal polling data and information on battleground states with a Russian spy; and the Campaign chairman worked with the Russian spy on a pro-Russia “peace” plan for Ukraine.

    4. The Trump Campaign chairman periodically shared internal polling data with the Russian spy with the expectation it would be shared with Putin-linked oligarch, Oleg Deripaska.

    5. Trump Campaign chairman Manafort expected Trump’s winning the presidency would mean Deripaska would want to use Manafort to advance Deripaska’s interests in the United States and elsewhere.

    6. Trump Tower meeting: (1) On receiving an email offering derogatory information on Clinton coming from a Russian government official, Donald Trump Jr. “appears to have accepted that offer;” (2) members of the Campaign discussed the Trump Tower meeting beforehand; (3) Donald Trump Jr. told the Russians during the meeting that Trump could revisit the issue of the Magnitsky Act if elected.

    7. A Trump Campaign official told the Special Counsel he “felt obliged to object” to a GOP Platform change on Ukraine because it contradicted Trump’s wishes; however, the investigation did not establish that Gordon was directed by Trump.

    8. Russian military hackers may have followed Trump’s July 27, 2016 public statement “Russia if you’re listening …” within hours by targeting Clinton’s personal office for the first time.

    9. Trump requested campaign affiliates to get Clinton’s emails, which resulted in an individual apparently acting in coordination with the Campaign claiming to have successfully contacted Russian hackers.

    10. The Trump Campaign—and Trump personally—appeared to have advanced knowledge of future WikiLeaks releases.

    11. The Trump Campaign coordinated campaign-related public communications based on future WikiLeaks releases.

    12. Michael Cohen, on behalf of the Trump Organization, brokered a secret deal for a Trump Tower Moscow project directly involving Putin’s inner circle, at least until June 2016.

    13. During the presidential transition, Jared Kushner and Eric Prince engaged in secret back channel communications with Russian agents. (1) Kushner suggested to the Russian Ambassador that they use a secure communication line from within the Russian Embassy to speak with Russian Generals; and (2) Prince and Kushner’s friend Rick Gerson conducted secret back channel meetings with a Putin agent to develop a plan for U.S.-Russian relations.

    14. During the presidential transition, in coordination with other members of the Transition Team, Michael Flynn spoke with the Russian Ambassador to prevent a tit for tat Russian response to the Obama administration’s imposition of sanctions for election interference; the Russians agreed not to retaliate saying they wanted a good relationship with the incoming administration.

    During the course of 2016, Trump Campaign associates failed to report any of the Russian/WikiLeaks overtures to federal law enforcement, publicly denied any contacts with Russians/WikiLeaks, and actively encouraged the public to doubt that Russia was behind the hacking and distribution of stolen emails."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  9. #129
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,756
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "How could such knowledge of possible futures be known?
    Support please (thingy)….."

    This is the challenge I was presented with. I never claimed that.
    Yes, and you'll notice I didn't rule that you needed to support that you have knowledge of possible futures. I ruled that you didn't support the claim you made, which is still the case. Thus making that claim in the future is a rule violation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cowboy
    Sure, I'll amend my statement to included what I've already quoted from the Mueller report (from the introduction so it would also include all of the supporting material in the report) to include everything else we already know about Trump and his entanglements. So where I said "per the Mueller report" it now says "per the Mueller report and everything else we know so far". (which I laid out in post 124)

    You are free to amend your claim...with support. Nothing you offered in post 124 or in this post support your claim, modified or otherwise. I'll modify the ruling since you modified the claim, do not make a claim that the Mueller report [and everything else we know about President Trump] defines Putin in a position of power over Trump unless you can support it from [those] document[s].
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #130
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Yes, and you'll notice I didn't rule that you needed to support that you have knowledge of possible futures. I ruled that you didn't support the claim you made, which is still the case. Thus making that claim in the future is a rule violation.
    Good. As long as the submitted challenge by Belthazor has been resolved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are free to amend your claim...with support. Nothing you offered in post 124 or in this post support your claim, modified or otherwise. I'll modify the ruling since you modified the claim, do not make a claim that the Mueller report [and everything else we know about President Trump] defines Putin in a position of power over Trump unless you can support it from [those] document[s]. [/COLOR]
    Sure. I'll begin with what I've already posted: That Putin wanted Trump as President and that he used the tremendous power (both of the official Russian state and individual actors) to bring about that end.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  11. #131
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Good. As long as the submitted challenge by Belthazor has been resolved.
    Though I didn't ask for staff resolution on the matter, Squatch is correct. I "challenged" (thingy) your claim from post #119 that:
    "Well, she wouldn't have sucked as president."

    ---

    I did not challenge, as you allude to in post #128:
    "How could such knowledge of possible futures be known?
    Support please (thingy)….."

    This is the challenge I was presented with. I never claimed that."
    ----

    It was/is only about your claim of Hillary "not sucking" if she were president, not your knowing other "possible futures".

    However, I thought the point was resolved in my post #122:
    " IOW, in your opinion she would have been a great president given the chance... "

    As long as it is your opinion Hillary would not have "sucked as president" no issue.
    If you claim it as fact, yes issue, as it is hardly a given (nor even likely at best, IMHO)...

    ---------- Post added at 05:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:26 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I take it that's your victory lap after you got your big brother to beat me up. How cute.[COLOR="Silver"]
    1. It seemed clear enough to me he was not gloating about anything here. Quite the opposite really.
    2. How is Squatch asking you:
    to abide by ODN rules if you are going to post on ODN = "beating you up"?

    ---------- Post added at 05:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure. I'll begin with what I've already posted: That Putin wanted Trump as President and that he used the tremendous power (both of the official Russian state and individual actors) to bring about that end.

    I'm sure Putin did the "best" he could to have an influence in the election. Do you really expect him not to have an "active" interest in who is president of the US?

    That said, no one knows his motivations for why he chose the way he did but him. That doesn't mean don't look for possible motivations, just we need actual evidence a crime was committed before you know, arresting the Donald (whether he is/was president or not)...

    (I guess I have to again say, if the Donald is caught doing something illegal fine, charge him like anyone else....)

  12. #132
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I did not challenge, as you allude to in post #128:
    "How could such knowledge of possible futures be known?
    Support please (thingy)….."
    That is literally, exactly what you challenged. I took it to mean I would have known before the election that Hillary would've been a non-sucking president, as in definitive knowledge of the future (as opposed to an educated analysis and conclusion). Is this what you meant or not?

    ---------- Post added at 10:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    1. It seemed clear enough to me he was not gloating about anything here. Quite the opposite really.
    2. How is Squatch asking you:
    to abide by ODN rules if you are going to post on ODN = "beating you up"?
    Indeed, I don't seem to see any red typing aimed at Ibsled for his unsupported statement about liberals thinking Hillary sucks. Isn't using the idiot symbol to reply to me an example of flaming? No worries though, I actually like hearing from Squatch. He often makes me better and if he gets too bad I always have the Squatch filter.

    ---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    That said, no one knows his motivations for why he chose the way he did but him.
    The Mueller team knows and said as much. My post 124.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  13. #133
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That is literally, exactly what you challenged.
    No, it is not, per the 1st part of my last post you left out of your response.

    Do you care to respond to my challenge from my post #120.
    Again, post #120, not another #....

    My post from #120 was specifically aimed at your claim:
    "Well, she wouldn't have sucked as president."

    Nothing else.

    Can you do that?

    ---------- Post added at 08:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    The Mueller team knows and said as much. My post 124.
    AND...………….if that is truly the case, let the chips fall where they may...….

  14. #134
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,756
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure. I'll begin with what I've already posted: That Putin wanted Trump as President and that he used the tremendous power (both of the official Russian state and individual actors) to bring about that end.
    Which you've already posted and which I already pointed out does not support your claim. Putin's interest and desire, even his active involvement in the campaign does not lend support to the existence of a coercive or power position over President Trump.

    Claims to this extent without direct support would constitute a rule violation.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #135
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    "Well, she wouldn't have sucked as president." "We found that while Clinton supported more border security, the plans back then were not the kind of wall Trump has proposed"

    I also claim that my deductions are support per the rules.

    Being denied by Mexico is humiliating and sucks
    Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the wall and was denied in his official role as president.
    Trump sucks as president.

    Hillary made no such promise
    There would not have been any denial for something she didn't promise
    Hillary would not have sucked as president.



    That Hillary may not make some mistakes that the Donald has made in NO way shape nor form supports that she "wouldn't suck as president".
    You have not supported that "Hillary wouldn't suck".
    So far it just your opinion (or unsupported claim).
    Last edited by Squatch347; May 3rd, 2019 at 06:15 AM. Reason: Tag fix

  16. #136
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which you've already posted and which I already pointed out does not support your claim. Putin's interest and desire, even his active involvement in the campaign does not lend support to the existence of a coercive or power position over President Trump.

    Claims to this extent without direct support would constitute a rule violation.
    Sure, as long as we're agreed on what I've submited I'll move on.

    ---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    That Hillary may not make some mistakes that the Donald has made in NO way shape nor form supports that she "wouldn't suck as president".
    You have not supported that "Hillary wouldn't suck".
    So far it just your opinion (or unsupported claim).
    Sure it does. It's not "may not" it's "would not". What type of support are you looking for?

    ---------- Post added at 12:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:42 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    AND...………….if that is truly the case...….
    You'll have to support that the Mueller report is in error in this instance {challenge thingy}
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #137
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure, as long as we're agreed on what I've submited I'll move on.

    ---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:39 AM ----------

    What does this even mean?

    Squatch said you hadn't supported your claim and you still have not.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Sure it does.
    I refer you to post 129. You still have not supported your claim regarding Hillary.


    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    You'll have to support that the Mueller report is in error in this instance {challenge thingy}

    Please show where I made this claim (thingy)!

  18. #138
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What does this even mean?

    Squatch said you hadn't supported your claim and you still have not.



    I refer you to post 129. You still have not supported your claim regarding Hillary.





    Please show where I made this claim (thingy)!
    What are you two even debating at this point? Mueller's report is out. It is public domain. Not enough evidence to support collusion. Period! In our innocent until proven guilty system, this means Trump, by definition is innocent of collusion with the Russians. Mueller didn't have enough information to indict me either. Does that mean I could be guilty? It is the prosecutor's job to prove guilt. It isn't Trump's job to prove he is innocent. I am not a lawyer but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn and I know enough about law to understand this. People are not required to prove innocence. The prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty. Mueller said, after 1 1/2 years of investigating, nope. Not enough evidence. Case is over. He handed it to his boss, AG William Barr and said, boss, nothing here to run with. Barr looked at the conclusion and relayed it to the public and to Congress. That is the end of the criminal investigation.

    And now Democrats are pissed. They were absolutely positive their boy, Bob Mueller would come through and do their dirty work for them. There would be no Trump in 2020 to call them funny names and steal their rightful place in the halls of power. But lo and behold, Mueller failed. Barr, just doing his job, has been made the scapegoat. I mean, he released the entire damn report except for the parts which are redacted by law and he is being held in contempt with accusations of a cover-up. This is how desperate the Democrats are at this point. They have completely given up legislating. I mean if the "aspirational" Green New Deal counts as legislation. I think, the Democrats are trying to delay long enough so their newest members learn how to write a real bill. Possibly, they need to learn to read and write period. I mean, if legislative bills were limited to 240 chars, they'd probably be fine. Not being able to use emojis is so totally unfair. Amirite? If I were Pelosi and my loudest members were illiterate 12 year olds and anti-Semitic lunatics, I'd probably be looking for any diversion I could too. I am no fan of Pelosi, but she is, at the very least, a grown up. Her caucus is a virtual romper room and it must drive grandma Pelosi nuts.

    I've been trying to be less partisan on here, but this whole Trump thing is really foul to me. It really is. It is like the final brown stain left by the Clinton's on their way out of the public spotlight. But, as much as I'd like to pin this all on the Clintons, it took a lot of coordination from the Obama team which means the entire Democratic party has become rotten to the core. The party needs fresh faces, but they need to be mature and respectable. I think the Democrats are on the cusp of their own Watergate. Two things will need to happen. A willingness to investigate crimes which occurred back in 2015 and a GOP politico who understands how to tell the story in a way that interests the American people. Considering the media will largely ignore it, probably no Watergate. But, I think the possibility is one reason Democrats have been so insistent on keeping Trump collusion in the spotlight and why they are trying to investigate him for everything under the sun. They are scared folks. And they should be.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  19. #139
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,236
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    What are you two even debating at this point?
    At the moment CB and I are arguing whether his claim "Hillary wouldn't suck as president" (compared to the Donald) can be supported. I don't see how it could be but CB is intent on this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Mueller's report is out. It is public domain. Not enough evidence to support collusion. Period! In our innocent until proven guilty system, this means Trump, by definition is innocent of collusion with the Russians.
    Agreed and I have said as much (though CB still disputes this issue).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Mueller didn't have enough information to indict me either. Does that mean I could be guilty? It is the prosecutor's job to prove guilt. It isn't Trump's job to prove he is innocent. I am not a lawyer but I have stayed in a Holiday Inn and I know enough about law to understand this. People are not required to prove innocence. The prosecutor must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty. Mueller said, after 1 1/2 years of investigating, nope. Not enough evidence. Case is over. He handed it to his boss, AG William Barr and said, boss, nothing here to run with. Barr looked at the conclusion and relayed it to the public and to Congress. That is the end of the criminal investigation.
    The current liberal mind will never rest till a republican president is impeached. So try, try again I'm guessing.

    Again I will say, both parties keep this sh!t alive to deflect the publics attention from their criminal negligence in governing and it works pretty well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    And now Democrats are pissed. They were absolutely positive their boy, Bob Mueller would come through and do their dirty work for them. There would be no Trump in 2020 to call them funny names and steal their rightful place in the halls of power. But lo and behold, Mueller failed. Barr, just doing his job, has been made the scapegoat. I mean, he released the entire damn report except for the parts which are redacted by law and he is being held in contempt with accusations of a cover-up. This is how desperate the Democrats are at this point. They have completely given up legislating. I mean if the "aspirational" Green New Deal counts as legislation. I think, the Democrats are trying to delay long enough so their newest members learn how to write a real bill. Possibly, they need to learn to read and write period. I mean, if legislative bills were limited to 240 chars, they'd probably be fine. Not being able to use emojis is so totally unfair. Amirite? If I were Pelosi and my loudest members were illiterate 12 year olds and anti-Semitic lunatics, I'd probably be looking for any diversion I could too. I am no fan of Pelosi, but she is, at the very least, a grown up. Her caucus is a virtual romper room and it must drive grandma Pelosi nuts.
    "very funny Macklin, where's the whiskey?"
    (old Indian chief from McClintoc)

    You are spot on dude!


    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    I've been trying to be less partisan on here, but this whole Trump thing is really foul to me. It really is. It is like the final brown stain left by the Clinton's on their way out of the public spotlight. But, as much as I'd like to pin this all on the Clintons, it took a lot of coordination from the Obama team which means the entire Democratic party has become rotten to the core. The party needs fresh faces, but they need to be mature and respectable. I think the Democrats are on the cusp of their own Watergate. Two things will need to happen. A willingness to investigate crimes which occurred back in 2015 and a GOP politico who understands how to tell the story in a way that interests the American people. Considering the media will largely ignore it, probably no Watergate. But, I think the possibility is one reason Democrats have been so insistent on keeping Trump collusion in the spotlight and why they are trying to investigate him for everything under the sun. They are scared folks. And they should be.
    Also agreed, though I would add republican's have plenty of issues, just different ones...

  20. #140
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,959
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Where are the Russia Collusion Charges?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    What does this even mean?

    Squatch said you hadn't supported your claim and you still have not.
    It means exactly what it says and was intended to mean. If you don't agree with it then there's no point in moving on to the rest of my argument.

    ---------- Post added at 10:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post


    Please show where I made this claim (thingy)!
    Post 133.

    ---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Not enough evidence to support collusion.
    Not enough evidence to support a conspiracy charge. Collusion isn't a crime and Mueller found plenty of it. Regardless, he couldn't charge the president per the OLC rules as stated.

    ---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post

    Agreed and I have said as much (though CB still disputes this issue).
    Again, I've already supported this. This is not what the report said. Please stop saying it without support of some kind.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Collusion!
    By CowboyX in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: July 31st, 2019, 06:53 AM
  2. Man defends home, possibly facing charges?
    By Someguy in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 6th, 2014, 11:39 AM
  3. Vicar admits child porn charges
    By pikatore in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: September 4th, 2008, 05:32 AM
  4. Charges in Haditha case are dropped!
    By Ivan in forum Current Events
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: September 28th, 2007, 03:50 PM
  5. Replies: 34
    Last Post: October 19th, 2005, 08:49 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •