Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 579636 times)

Versatile

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 118
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6350 on: March 14, 2019, 09:45:32 PM »
On the face of it, I'm pretty sure that if either camp were presented with damaging information about the other than they would have run with it. The question then becomes what is illegal and did either the Clinton camp or Trump camp actually break the law.

You're sure Clinton "would have" done the same thing (with no evidence), so now the real question is whether "either camp" broke the law? Please.

I guess we'll never now about Clinton's campaign in particular, since they didn't have the opportunity to prove you wrong. But your imaginings do not bear the same weight as what actually happened. We also know that in a similar situation the Gore campaign quickly turned over such "help" to the FBI.

It's also not like Trump's campaign was just sitting minding it's own business and then were surprised by a Russian ambush as they thrust a file of information into their hands. We know that many people in Trumps campaign were actively seeking out Russian collusion.

then the Clinton camp is guilty as well when they paid foreign operatives (including Russian) for dirt on Trump.

Wrong again. Clinton's campaign hired a former British Intelligence agent to do some research, and yes he did talk to some people who were Russian. That is fundamentally and obviously different from colluding with a foreign government, especially one as traditionally hostile to the country as Russia, especially one which has an active disinformation and propaganda campaign that indents to interfere in our elections.

I don't see how anyone, conservative or not, could honestly equate the two. Of course if they are getting their news from an organization who's goal is to misinform and twist and excuse the behavior of Republicans at all cost then I guess I can see it...

It's also fascinating how quickly you've jumped from "no evidence of collusion" to "both sides did would have done it" and "maybe it wasn't illegal".

Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm.

Yeah, and "won't anyone rid me of this troublesome priest" is just sarcasm too, until someone does it.

I think you need to stick with what I've actually said.

Don Jr. and company had a meeting with a Russian lawyer. There are several versions of what occurred and as of now it's mainly speculation on what actually transpired. I am hoping Mueller will clear the air. If it is proven that in fact they met up to trade information on the Clinton campaign, then it needs to be determined where exactly and if a crime was committed. That's all I am saying. Let's see what Mueller comes up with.

My other point was that Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British who allegedly gleaned all of his information from Russians. We have also learned that the vast majority of his reports were entirely fictional and worse led to FISA warrants under very dubious credibility. Which led to spying on Carter Page and indirectly Trump and provided a basis for opening the Mueller investigation by a handful of players that have had their careers ruined because of their bias. Think about that for a minute. Like the Trump example, I am eagerly awaiting Muellers report to see where the facts lie, because there is a tremendous amount of speculation.

Now as far as what I believe at this point : I believe both camps would have welcomed damaging information on the other. I believe both sides would have turned askance at the source. Do you think Clinton cared where the information from Steele came from? Do you think Trump cared who leaked the DNC e-mails to Wiki-leaks? Of course not.

If you want to cry collusion, or Russian interference, go ahead, but stop being angry when the other side uses the same dubious speculation as a basis for perceived fact.

The Senate Bi-Partisan Intelligence Committeee has recently found NO direct evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. I fully suspect Mueller has found no such information either after two years. But hey, I could be wrong. But I am speculating, and we know what can happen with that.

One last issue:

I don't see how anyone, conservative or not, could honestly equate the two. Of course if they are getting their news from an organization who's goal is to misinform and twist and excuse the behavior of Republicans at all cost then I guess I can see it...

Everybody is getting shitty and biased information. The news media in this country is a national disgrace. They have caused more harm and divided this country like no other. You want to look for a traitor? Turn on the news.

sherr

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 615
  • Age: 33
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6351 on: March 14, 2019, 10:43:55 PM »
My other point was that Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British who allegedly gleaned all of his information from Russians. We have also learned that the vast majority of his reports were entirely fictional and worse led to FISA warrants under very dubious credibility.

You are a damned dirty liar. Name one thing in the Steele Dossier that was proven to be fictional.

MOD EDIT: Please don't call people names. Rule #1

Which led to spying on Carter Page and indirectly Trump and provided a basis for opening the Mueller investigation by a handful of players that have had their careers ruined because of their bias.

Carter Page in particular may not have been proven guilty of anything, but the "handful of players"  who's lives were "ruined" by the court system where because of the multitude of laws that they broke, not because of their "bias".

Like the Trump example, I am eagerly awaiting Muellers report to see where the facts lie, because there is a tremendous amount of speculation.

From "The Mueller investigation has revealed no evidence of collusion" to "Hey let's not jump to conclusions based on the many guilty please the Mueller investigation has managed to extract, we have to wait for the final report guys!" The truth is already out there to anyone who cares to look for it.

[snip another bunch of lies, unjustified speculation about whether Hillary would have been equally as traitorous, and "both sides are just as bad"]

The Senate Bi-Partisan Intelligence Committeee has recently found NO direct evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians. I fully suspect Mueller has found no such information either after two years. But hey, I could be wrong. But I am speculating, and we know what can happen with that.

The Senate (controlled by Republicans) "Bi-Partisan" Intelligence Committee has found no direct evidence... right, nice bit of spin there. Because of course only a video of Trump confessing would be "direct" evidence for someone who constantly operates through flunkies.

Everybody is getting shitty and biased information. The news media in this country is a national disgrace. They have caused more harm and divided this country like no other. You want to look for a traitor? Turn on the news.

Right, the old Fox News "the mainstream media (somehow we are not included) are the bad guys" / Trumpian "people who report on me are the enemies of the public" line. I'm not saying NPR are angels incarnate or anything, but they sure are a hell of a lot more Patriotic and American that lying parrots like you.

Way to not actually address anything substantive that was brought up between your initial post and now, and instead just repeat your talking points again in a slightly different phrasing. Propaganda-spewing intellectually-dishonest-debaters like you are the enemies of the public, not journalists who trend a little too much towards click-bait titles.

At this point it's very clear what you are to everyone who cares to look. When the mods hit you with the "100 posts not in Off Topic for new posters" rule you immediately started spamming every conversation you could find with low-effort nonsense so that you could rush back here to Trump's defense. Don't worry, I'll go ahead and flag this conversation to the mods and be done. Mods, please do something.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 08:14:31 AM by arebelspy »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6352 on: March 14, 2019, 10:52:40 PM »
Wait, are we actually arguing with an account that was only created to argue about Donald Trump?

I mean I get that we're off-topic here, but when someone shows up and says "I'm only here to argue with you" that's usually a good sign that you shouldn't bother.  Seriously, who finds people on the internet that they disagree with and then decides to create a profile and then bypass the filter system just to argue with those people?  I mean besides from professional "activists" of the kind that Russia has used to such great effect, because I think we've all seen enough of that already.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6353 on: March 15, 2019, 04:50:00 AM »
Does anyone think Lindsey Graham will be picked for Trumps running mate for the 20/20 election? Do you think Pence will step down or Trump throw him out?

Lindsey seems to be quite the pit bull since the Kavanaugh hearings and he seems very cozy with Donald these days.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3806
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6354 on: March 15, 2019, 06:17:18 AM »

And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.

You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.


A few quotes from that mediabiasfactcheck article:

'In review, the website features selected political news stories and op-eds from various news publications in addition to commentary from its own contributors. Though their own political views lean conservative, the site’s founders say their goal is to give readers “ideological diversity” in its commentary section. In reviewing their political news and opinions there are slightly more that are published from right leaning sources, however both sides are represented. Real Clear Politics is perhaps best known for their RCP Polling Average, which combines all polling data to create a statistical average."

RCP is pretty good about posting opposing viewpoints in juxtaposed links.  E.g., from this morning,
Dems' Civil War Means Trump Will Win in 2020 James Robbins, USA Today
The Democrats' Civil War Is Over Before It Began Jack Shafer, Politico


"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.


"In reviewing original Real Clear Politics articles, there is a right leaning bias in wording and story selection such as [one example given]."

The top two story selections as of this writing are
Pelosi's Wise Move; Israel's Multifaceted Wall; ...
Trump's Fantasy Budget


That doesn't seem a "right leaning bias."

Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9861
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6355 on: March 15, 2019, 06:56:13 AM »
Remember remember the 5th of November...

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6356 on: March 15, 2019, 07:25:20 AM »
I think you need to stick with what I've actually said.

This is something you said:
then the Clinton camp is guilty as well when they paid foreign operatives (including Russian) for dirt on Trump.

This is the response:
Clinton's campaign hired a former British Intelligence agent to do some research, and yes he did talk to some people who were Russian.

Then you changed your statement to:
My other point was that Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British who allegedly gleaned all of his information from Russians.

Without acknowledging that you've changed your position from "The Clinton camp [] paid [Russian] Operatives" to "Clinton hired an ex-spy who is British"

These are not the same thing, would you agree?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12887
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6357 on: March 15, 2019, 07:52:04 AM »
Point number two is simply sarcasm on Trump's part. It's poor humor, but nonetheless it's sarcasm. It's just a cheap way for Trump to highlight that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 e-mails after they were subpoenaed. How in the hell this isn't obstruction of justice is beyond me.

Do you have proof that what you're claiming happened, happened?  I only ask because I seem to remember an investigation by the FBI that cleared Clinton of these charges.

What specifically? And I have some things to say about our Dept. of Justice.

Specifically?  What you claimed.

You claimed that Clinton permanently deleted 33,000 emails after they were subpoenaed in order to obstruct justice.


My understanding is much what Dabnabsty posted.
- Emails were deleted after they were subpoenaed, but not because of anything that Clinton said . . . because the guy in charge of them had forgotten to do so earlier and panicked.
- An investigation was done that concluded there was no intent to obstruct justice.
- The number 33,000 is also incorrect, there were fewer emails.

That is quite different than your claim, so I'm asking you if you have any evidence to support the things you said.

Still waiting.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1986
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6358 on: March 15, 2019, 07:56:16 AM »
Does anyone think Lindsey Graham will be picked for Trumps running mate for the 20/20 election? Do you think Pence will step down or Trump throw him out?

Lindsey seems to be quite the pit bull since the Kavanaugh hearings and he seems very cozy with Donald these days.

Maybe.  However, I strongly suspect Graham's closeted, so I'm not sure how that would play with the base.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6359 on: March 15, 2019, 08:08:34 AM »
Not sure what Pence adds to the party. He is like a floor lamp with a 15 watt lightbulb. Trump may want to ramp up his ugliness with someone like Graham. He showed his ugly side during the Kavanaugh hearings.

I really think Donald has put a carrot on a stick in front of Lindsey to be his pit bull and as a reward he will make him vice president in the next election.

If not vice president, something must be brewing.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3806
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6360 on: March 15, 2019, 08:25:08 AM »
I don't know what Trump's plans for Graham are (obviously), but it is possible he's gonna shitcan Pence. Pence, after all, was chosen so that the Evangelicals would have a smokescreen for voting for a lying, cheating crook by being able to pretend he actually gives a shit about Christian values.

Now that his base is completely and thoroughly brainwashed, he doesn't really need Pence anymore. Pence is a perfect toady who will just quietly accept any disgusting displays without comment. But Graham is one-upping him by wholeheartedly, vocally selling his soul.

Given that Trump can be easily manipulated by anyone who flatters him, it's not unreasonable to assume he'd reward the loudest braying acolyte.

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 27475
  • Age: -999
  • Location: Traveling the World
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6361 on: March 15, 2019, 08:26:06 AM »
At this point it's very clear what you are to everyone who cares to look. When the mods hit you with the "100 posts not in Off Topic for new posters" rule you immediately started spamming every conversation you could find with low-effort nonsense so that you could rush back here to Trump's defense.

To this...

Looking at his post history, he's been on the forum 4 months, 20 posts in his first week, all off topic politics. Nothing for 2.5 months, then in early March ~50 more posts, all off topic.

March 12, new OT policy (which he immediately assumed was targeted at him, based on his comment in the discussion thread on it), a few dozen comments on scattered threads, then a bunch more off topic politics comments.

The point of the policy was for people who want to be here in our community to be here and engage with the community. If they happen to discuss politics a little, fine.

If your point of being here is to discuss politics, go find another site more appropriate. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall on, this is not a politics site. This is a site for Mustachians.

(At times it's hard to tell if he's trying to get banned so he can claim moderator bias, and forum version of suicide by cop.  *eyeroll*)
We are two former teachers who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, and now travel the world full time with two kids.
If you want to know more about me, or how we did that, or see lots of pictures, this Business Insider profile tells our story pretty well.
We (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out our Now page to see what we're up to currently.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6362 on: March 15, 2019, 09:35:43 AM »

Now that his base is completely and thoroughly brainwashed, he doesn't really need Pence anymore. Pence is a perfect toady who will just quietly accept any disgusting displays without comment. But Graham is one-upping him by wholeheartedly, vocally selling his soul.

Besides, Pence won't go to the strip clubs with Trump unless he brings his wife along. Sad! (and /s, of course)

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3806
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6363 on: March 15, 2019, 09:41:14 AM »

Now that his base is completely and thoroughly brainwashed, he doesn't really need Pence anymore. Pence is a perfect toady who will just quietly accept any disgusting displays without comment. But Graham is one-upping him by wholeheartedly, vocally selling his soul.

Besides, Pence won't go to the strip clubs with Trump unless he brings his wife along. Sad! (and /s, of course)

OMG. I just had an image of Graham going to a strip club with Trump, loudly yelling, stuffing bills in the women's G-strings, and over-performing his super-heterosexual manly man-ness.

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6364 on: March 15, 2019, 09:53:44 AM »
Kris, you are too funny!

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9199
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6365 on: March 15, 2019, 02:29:50 PM »
And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.
You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.
"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.
Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?
Just noting that "a mixed record of factual reporting" refers to using the Washington Post et al as sources. 

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3806
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6366 on: March 15, 2019, 02:39:06 PM »
And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.
You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.
"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.
Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?
Just noting that "a mixed record of factual reporting" refers to using the Washington Post et al as sources.

No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.

I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.

Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).


And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 02:48:54 PM by Kris »

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1496
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6367 on: March 15, 2019, 02:47:23 PM »
And his source, an offshoot of Real Clear Politics, has a mixed record of factual reporting.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-politics/.
You notice I did not say anything about RCP's political bias. I said they have a mixed record of factual reporting.
"Most of the news content on Real Clear Politics is aggregated from other sources such as: Washington Post, New York Post, Salon, Fox News, The Federalist and National Review. Several of the sources used by Real Clear Politics are listed as Mixed factual due to failed fact checks."

Perhaps every single one of those sources has at one time or another failed a "fact check."  Not sure then what "Mixed factual" means in this context.
Why are you arguing with me about something I did not say?
Just noting that "a mixed record of factual reporting" refers to using the Washington Post et al as sources.

They gave a list of sources and then said that some of RCP's sources have failed fact checks. It's two separate statements, not all of the sources in that list have failed a fact check.

Under the RealClearInvestigations analysis they were a bit more specific
Quote
A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge.
And
Quote
RealClearInvestigations sourced Fox News who in turn sourced the same information from another factually mixed source the Daily Caller, owned by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9199
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6368 on: March 15, 2019, 03:33:22 PM »
No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.
You may wish to think you know what I was noting, but if that is what you think, you are thinking incorrectly.

Quote
I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.
It looks that way because that is correct.

Quote
Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).
I removed parts of the exchange because
a) I find deeply nested quotes annoying and rude to most readers, and
b) it lets people focus on the specific reply to your specific statement.

Quote
And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.
Correct, they didn't specify which sources but are you aware of any major news source that has never failed a "fact check"?

FWIW, there's a good chance "New York Post" should have been "New York Times" but hey, everyone makes mistakes.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9199
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6369 on: March 15, 2019, 03:35:17 PM »
They gave a list of sources and then said that some of RCP's sources have failed fact checks. It's two separate statements, not all of the sources in that list have failed a fact check.

Under the RealClearInvestigations analysis they were a bit more specific
Quote
A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge.
And
Quote
RealClearInvestigations sourced Fox News who in turn sourced the same information from another factually mixed source the Daily Caller, owned by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson.
Sure, conservative-leaning sites fail fact checks.  So do liberal-leaning sites.  It's a true equivalence. ;)

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5324
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6370 on: March 15, 2019, 03:35:27 PM »
No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.
You may wish to think you know what I was noting, but if that is what you think, you are thinking incorrectly.

Quote
I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.
It looks that way because that is correct.

Quote
Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).
I removed parts of the exchange because
a) I find deeply nested quotes annoying and rude to most readers, and
b) it lets people focus on the specific reply to your specific statement.

Quote
And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.
Correct, they didn't specify which sources but are you aware of any major news source that has never failed a "fact check"?

FWIW, there's a good chance "New York Post" should have been "New York Times" but hey, everyone makes mistakes.

If you have to destroy the original context in order to make your point, perhaps your initial argument was poorly stated.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3806
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6371 on: March 15, 2019, 03:39:41 PM »
No, that's not what you were noting. You were arguing against a straw-man that I had said they have a right-wing bias. Which, for the third (and hopefully final) time, I never said.
You may wish to think you know what I was noting, but if that is what you think, you are thinking incorrectly.

Quote
I notice that you clipped the conversation differently, so that your response to me was not actually shown -- making it look, to anyone who just reads this post, as though you were responding to the remark about having a mixed record.
It looks that way because that is correct.

Quote
Here is the actual exchange, and your actual response, which you removed because it shows the straw man you were actually responding to (see attachment).
I removed parts of the exchange because
a) I find deeply nested quotes annoying and rude to most readers, and
b) it lets people focus on the specific reply to your specific statement.

Quote
And as far as the Post: You will note in the quote you cited that first, they gave a list of the sources used by RCP as examples. And then second, they mentioned that "several" of the sources used failed fact checks. They did not specify that the Post was one of the sources that failed fact checks. That is your wishful thinking.
Correct, they didn't specify which sources but are you aware of any major news source that has never failed a "fact check"?

FWIW, there's a good chance "New York Post" should have been "New York Times" but hey, everyone makes mistakes.

If you have to destroy the original context in order to make your point, perhaps your initial argument was poorly stated.

Pretty much.

And LOL at MDM having to actually include the New York Times in this list EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T IN THERE.

Which is the most GORGEOUS illustration of his penchant for wishful thinking... Honestly, you can't even make this stuff up. 

Seriously, MDM, half the time you're very close to just flat-out lying.

« Last Edit: March 15, 2019, 03:41:56 PM by Kris »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9199
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6372 on: March 15, 2019, 04:09:34 PM »
If you have to destroy the original context in order to make your point, perhaps your initial argument was poorly stated.
Perhaps, but I think not.  You are of course free to have your own opinion.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9199
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6373 on: March 15, 2019, 04:16:49 PM »
And LOL at MDM having to actually include the New York Times in this list EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T IN THERE.

Which is the most GORGEOUS illustration of his penchant for wishful thinking... Honestly, you can't even make this stuff up. 

Seriously, MDM, half the time you're very close to just flat-out lying.
Perhaps you missed that that was a reference to a mistake made by the site reviewing RCP.  At least, I think it more likely that the New York Times is more commonly sourced by RCP than the New York Post - but maybe not.  You could do a count and let us know. ;)

Sometimes people trip over which Times and which Post is which, between New York and Washington, do they not?

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10147
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6375 on: March 16, 2019, 06:38:55 AM »
Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court
Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknoledge it.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10147
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6376 on: March 16, 2019, 07:30:53 AM »
Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court
Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknowledge it.

That isn't the point.  The point is denying visas to ICC staff who need to be at the UN in New York.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9861
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6377 on: March 16, 2019, 09:32:00 AM »
 
Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court
Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknowledge it.

That isn't the point.  The point is denying visas to ICC staff who need to be at the UN in New York.

well the easiest way of defeating climate change is to make it official that it does not exist.  /s

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10147
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6378 on: March 16, 2019, 11:49:05 AM »
Getting back on topic.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/03/15/us-threatens-international-criminal-court
Be fair, as long as I can remember it was the stance of the US that US personal is not to be held accountable by anyone except (maybe) the US. That is nothing new and not related to Trump.

And in the case of this court, (old info) big states like China, Russia, India also do not acknowledge it.

That isn't the point.  The point is denying visas to ICC staff who need to be at the UN in New York.

well the easiest way of defeating climate change is to make it official that it does not exist.  /s

So the easiest way to deny international crime accountability is to deny the staff the ability to work on charges?  If the tactic works on one problem it should work on all of them, right?

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6379 on: March 16, 2019, 12:37:49 PM »
So the easiest way to deny international crime accountability is to deny the staff the ability to work on charges?
Actually... yes.
With murderous soldiers for example it is traditional to not give any info (like drone footage) you have to the court and forbid your soldiers to go to the court to testify.
Didn't that happen for the Abu Graib torturers too? tries to remember

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12887
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6380 on: March 16, 2019, 01:32:27 PM »
So the easiest way to deny international crime accountability is to deny the staff the ability to work on charges?
Actually... yes.
With murderous soldiers for example it is traditional to not give any info (like drone footage) you have to the court and forbid your soldiers to go to the court to testify.
Didn't that happen for the Abu Graib torturers too? tries to remember

The systematic torture, sexual abuse, rape, and deaths at Abu Graib weren't the result of a few rogue soldiers.  It was systemic, and occurred under orders.  Ricardo Sanchez (Lieutenant General and head of the military in Iraq at the time) explicitly authorized illegal torture by memorandum.  Donald Rumsfeld also signed-off on and authorized this action.

The fact that there wasn't even an attempt at finding justice for these crimes is one of the reasons that the US has no moral authority in the world today.  It has to have been significant contributing factor in helping terrorists to recruit people.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6381 on: March 16, 2019, 01:39:42 PM »
The systematic torture, sexual abuse, rape, and deaths at Abu Graib weren't the result of a few rogue soldiers.  It was systemic, and occurred under orders.  Ricardo Sanchez (Lieutenant General and head of the military in Iraq at the time) explicitly authorized illegal torture by memorandum.  Donald Rumsfeld also signed-off on and authorized this action.

The fact that there wasn't even an attempt at finding justice for these crimes is one of the reasons that the US has no moral authority in the world today.  It has to have been significant contributing factor in helping terrorists to recruit people.

But, but...  they hate our freedom.  Right?  They must hate our freedom, and not the fact that we invade their countries and bomb innocent women and children from remote control airplanes, or torture and rape their soldiers and then post photos of it on the internet.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Southern California
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6382 on: March 16, 2019, 02:50:41 PM »
Does anyone think Lindsey Graham will be picked for Trumps running mate for the 20/20 election? Do you think Pence will step down or Trump throw him out?

Lindsey seems to be quite the pit bull since the Kavanaugh hearings and he seems very cozy with Donald these days.

Depends on the Graham you want. After elections, he might very well go back to being a vocal Trump critic. Trump's biggest issue is immigration, and Graham's already proven himself squirrely on that. Pence is the guaranteed yes man Evangelical trophy piece, getting rid of him might not sit well with some folks. Then again, Trump doesn't need him with the justices he's appointed and likely will appoint, the right is set for a generation or two....

Which reminds me, RBG can you hang tough another 4 years? Unless Dems get their act together, we'll likely see a further swing to the right, and young replacements of current right leaning justices like Thomas...

Democratic party needs to pull their head out if their ass and either win Senate or Presidency, or the SC is lost for 2 generations.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 02:56:41 PM by Johnez »

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2626
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6383 on: March 16, 2019, 06:57:47 PM »
The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win the election. The Mueller investigation has provided no evidence that Trump committed any crimes much less an impeachable offense.

Except for his kids meeting with Russian agents to discuss dirt on Hillary and his campaign manager giving internal polling data to the Russians so that they can more effectively target their misinformation campaigns? And that's just what we know about currently.

Oh you mean Trump himself, that we can prove? How about asking Russia to hack the DNC to find "Hillary's missing emails" on TV?

Then you add in his obvious pattern of behavior or kowtowing to Putin at every opportunity and refusing to implement the sanctions that Congress places on Russian companies or people and the bizarre Helsinki joint speech where Trump essentially said "I asked him about interference and he says he didn't do it and I believe him over our all our own intelligence agencies" and on and on and on.

Come on.

Have you actually researched the behind-the-scene actions of multiple players in regard to the June 6th 2016 meeting? All we ever hear about is Don Jr, Manafort, Kushner, and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya. It's a bit more complicated than what is portrayed. Here is a good reference to highlight what I am talking about:

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/08/13/trump_tower_meeting_looks_increasingly_like_a_setup.html

One link leads to the other.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClearPolitics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McIntyre_(publisher)

And finally: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_(website)
« Last Edit: March 16, 2019, 07:15:43 PM by Just Joe »

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5324
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6384 on: March 17, 2019, 11:05:15 AM »
https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/03/16/trump-mueller-report-1224004

Trump is claiming he told the GOP House how to vote re: the Mueller report.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6385 on: March 19, 2019, 02:10:16 PM »
This longer read on the Trump-Deutsche Bank relationship is work a few minutes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/18/business/trump-deutsche-bank.html

TLDR: Trump repeatedly overvalued his assets and would not get loans from most banks.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6386 on: March 19, 2019, 04:28:44 PM »
Some of Cohen's warrants came out today. Much of it was redacted, but this much is clear: the investigation team has pretty much all correspondence by Cohen over a multi-year period. Phone calls, texts, emails, google docs, everything.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/michael-cohen-search-warrant-documents-dle/index.html

Here's one that was not redacted that I found interesting:
Cohen was paid nearly $600K in the first part of 2017 by a Russian name Viktor through a Swiss bank shell corporation. Why is a Russian name Viktor paying the President's personal lawyer over a half million dollars (at least)?

From a legal perspective, things are going to get very ugly for the Trump family. Of course, when you are criminals, that's a risk you are taking.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4193
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
    • Insert Snappy Title Here (Journal)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6387 on: March 19, 2019, 04:31:32 PM »
If that is true, I hope something finally sticks.
I’m damn tired of this crowd getting away with so much more than any regular person or even politician would be allowed to get away with.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3506
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6388 on: March 19, 2019, 05:50:01 PM »
If that is true, I hope something finally sticks.
I’m damn tired of this crowd getting away with so much more than any regular person or even politician would be allowed to get away with.

Trump made a yuge mistake. A lot of his assets are in New York, where the SDNY is actively investigating. It'll take a lot of machinations, and a few SC cases that ignore precedent, to get around those charges.

Zamboni

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2182
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6389 on: March 19, 2019, 06:39:32 PM »
They theory is the Cohen was the go between for funneling foreign money to multiple politicians. He did have a finance post with the Republican National Committee. The feds have also raided Elliott Brodie, also involved in GOP campaign finance and now also cooperating with investigators. All of the campaign finance parts today (and there was a lot of that) was redacted.

It explains Trump's twitter freak out all weekend. He's going down eventually.

Also, I'm moderately annoyed that the lead news story is now Trump verbally spitting in McCain's grave. Seriously, other than McCain's family, who I am sure are upset by all this, who cares? Why do they keep letting Trump distract from the real news with his bullcr*p antics?

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1238
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6390 on: March 20, 2019, 01:50:08 AM »
They theory is the Cohen was the go between for funneling foreign money to multiple politicians. He did have a finance post with the Republican National Committee. The feds have also raided Elliott Brodie, also involved in GOP campaign finance and now also cooperating with investigators. All of the campaign finance parts today (and there was a lot of that) was redacted.

It explains Trump's twitter freak out all weekend. He's going down eventually.

Also, I'm moderately annoyed that the lead news story is now Trump verbally spitting in McCain's grave. Seriously, other than McCain's family, who I am sure are upset by all this, who cares? Why do they keep letting Trump distract from the real news with his bullcr*p antics?

Because we all have heard so much of his bullcr*p antics that they are no longer news. Insulting dead persons is always good for "engagement", see, we talk about it already and we aren't even interested in it!

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2094
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6391 on: March 20, 2019, 04:26:44 AM »
Trump is constantly stirring the pot to get attention whether it be good or bad and McCain was the whipping boy of the hour.

He was whining about SNL and how they pick on him after watching a rerun of a Christmas SNL show that aired probably in December 2018.

He points out Beto's hand movements while speaking which I do find annoying, however, Trump has very annoying hand movements when he speaks too. Guess he never noticed.

Love Kelly Ann Conway's husband getting under Donald's skin!


talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6392 on: March 20, 2019, 08:18:05 AM »
I actually think George Conway is trying to help Trump by publishing these negative things about him in a way that will solidify support for him among conservatives. "See! Trump is even receiving shade from the husband of one of his most loyal advisors...besieged from all sides!"

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2238
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6393 on: March 20, 2019, 08:26:24 AM »
Okay, I just posted this, then opened up twitter, and, I cannot sincerely believe this anymore.

"@realDonaldTrump: George Conway, often referred to as Mr. Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is VERY jealous of his wife's succe..."

I didn't click on the link, but Mr. Conway himself replies, "The President of the United States", either to show grace or to make clear that he is as stunned as the rest of us that this is 2019.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8223
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6394 on: March 20, 2019, 08:56:18 AM »
They theory is the Cohen was the go between for funneling foreign money to multiple politicians. He did have a finance post with the Republican National Committee. The feds have also raided Elliott Brodie, also involved in GOP campaign finance and now also cooperating with investigators. All of the campaign finance parts today (and there was a lot of that) was redacted.

I think there's basically zero chance that the republican party comes out of the Mueller investigation without being specifically targeted for aiding and abetting a foreign power's attempts to subvert democracy.  Trump's personal "fixer", who made a career for himself funneling dirty money through third party entities to cover up dirty deeds while skirting the law, was put in charge of the RNC finance arm.  Coincidence?  He's already plead guilty to committing a variety of finance-related crimes at the specific request of the man who is now the US President.  We already know that the Trump Foundation was guilty of a variety of finance-related crimes.  Also the inauguration committee. 

Does anyone really believe that the RNC finance committee chairman, who is a known white collar criminal for finance-related crimes, was given his RNC post because he was so good at fundraising?  I think McConnell and Graham et al. knew exactly what they were getting with that appointment.  I think Cohen has testified as much in front of Congress in closed-door sessions, and now Congress is wrestling with how to reveal to the country that the party currently in power is brazenly corrupt.  Some of them (e.g. Nunes) have responded by doubling down on the use of corrupt power to maintain corrupt power, but there have got to be good honest republicans in Congress who are horrified at what their party is done and who are now struggling with how to salvage a bad situation.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2085
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6395 on: March 20, 2019, 09:25:01 AM »
Odds of Michael Cohen going into witness protection upon release from prison? If he described money laundering and other things detrimental to oligarchs, he may not be so popular anymore. Perhaps his new name will be Saul Goodman.

Johnez

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Location: Southern California
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6396 on: March 20, 2019, 09:52:19 AM »
Anybody following the Huawei saga unfolding between the US and the rest of Europe?  It appears the US might and clout have suffered a blow as notable allies Germany and the UK, plus other European countries are adopting Huawei's hardware for the 5G rollout.  In addition, we've pitted ourselves in an unwinnable situation by threatening to not share intel with these countries if they adopt the company's hardware.  OK, so now we're not going to share (and have intel shared with us) between our biggest allies???  This is kind of worrying.  Either we have proof Huawei is China's stooge, or we don't.  Do we have evidence and our allies simply aren't considering it?  Are we full of shit and on a witch hunt against China and Chinese companies?  Either way, our allies and other countries are not playing ball with us. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12887
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6397 on: March 20, 2019, 10:04:48 AM »
It's so weird that electing an abrasive asshole to represent your country has made other people less likely to do things in your countries interest.

:P

sequoia

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 592
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6398 on: March 20, 2019, 11:09:15 AM »
President Donald Trump blasted George Conway, the husband of top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, as "a total loser" and the "husband from hell!" following the conservative attorney's tweets suggesting that the president is not mentally fit to serve.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-blasts-george-conway-husband-top-white-house-aide-kellyanne-n984771

Anybody following the Huawei saga unfolding between the US and the rest of Europe?  It appears the US might and clout have suffered a blow as notable allies Germany and the UK, plus other European countries are adopting Huawei's hardware for the 5G rollout.  In addition, we've pitted ourselves in an unwinnable situation by threatening to not share intel with these countries if they adopt the company's hardware.  OK, so now we're not going to share (and have intel shared with us) between our biggest allies???  This is kind of worrying.  Either we have proof Huawei is China's stooge, or we don't.  Do we have evidence and our allies simply aren't considering it?  Are we full of shit and on a witch hunt against China and Chinese companies?  Either way, our allies and other countries are not playing ball with us.

Wait... why are you surprised? Our allies now is Putin (Russia) and Kim Jong-un (North Korea). If you are not a dictator, you are not allies of the US President.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 11:13:40 AM by sequoia »

OtherJen

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1183
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #6399 on: March 20, 2019, 12:06:52 PM »
President Donald Trump blasted George Conway, the husband of top White House adviser Kellyanne Conway, as "a total loser" and the "husband from hell!" following the conservative attorney's tweets suggesting that the president is not mentally fit to serve.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-blasts-george-conway-husband-top-white-house-aide-kellyanne-n984771

I’m so glad that he has taken his wife’s “Be Best” initiative to heart.