Should Trump be added to Rushmore?

[Into the Night]

I'm not obsessed with Trump. You are.

Blatant lie. You think of little else but Trump and how much you hate him.

 

[Earl]

Nah we can put Obama on Mount Rushmore since his legacy if fractured by his participation in the Russia hoax.

Indeed.

 

[Into the Night]

They all are. By now they know it. TDS is their attempt to hide it.

You can't hide your hate of Trump (or your TDS), Marty.

 

[Into the Night]

That is a good sign actually.

Not for you!

 

[Into the Night]

Trump is one of the few American Presidents to leave office with less people working them when he took office,

...due to Democrats and the Covid Hoax.

and the MAGAS will cry COVID, COVID, COVID,

It was due to Democrats and the Covid Hoax.

well IF he had handled that right and not told lie after lie and given out deceiving, distorted info and lied so much about it that may not have happened.

Trump is not a Democrat, Finger.

 

[Into the Night]

Yes we know Trump devotion syndrome is hard to see for you MAGAS.
But we understand it is all because of your low IQs.

Mantra 1a. Lame. (Note: Program statement 3 here...QED)

 

[Into the Night]

So drink less coffee...what's the problem ?

He has no problem (other than his caffeine problem). He agreed upon the price of coffee and bought several cans of the stuff.

 

[Lionfish]

5

I'm not obsessed with Trump. You are.

 

[QP!]

The ICA said Russia tried to throw the election in Trump's favored even though there is ZERO evidence they did. In fact Russia had information about Hillary taking tranquilizers and having diabetes that they did not release on her.

Flaws in ICA have zero bearing on the rest of the data used to draw the conclusion proving russia interfered to benefit Trump campaign, just as a cop can get one part of a murder investigation wrong and yet prove the case with the other 4 parts and the evidence in them.


--------------------

• Beyond the ICA review, the Committee conducted its own multi-year investigation (2017–2020).
• They:
  • Collected hundreds of witness interviews (classified and unclassified).
  • Reviewed millions of pages of documents from U.S. government agencies, the Trump campaign, social media companies, and others.
  • Issued five volumes covering different aspects of Russian interference, the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians, and vulnerabilities in the election system.
• Much of the investigative work in Volumes 1–3 and 5 had little to do with the ICA review — it involved their own fact-finding.

Bottom line:
The Senate report drew overall on a much broader investigation — involving their own interviews, subpoenas, document reviews, and separate analysis of Russian activities, social media operations, and potential vulnerabilities in the election process. The ICA review was one part of a five-volume, multi-year inquiry, not the sole basis for the Senate’s findings.

 

[FastLane]

Yes. They can blast Lincoln's scumbag mug off while they're at it.

Still butt hurt about the war over state's rights?

 

[FastLane]

Flaws in ICA have zero bearing on the rest of the data used to draw the conclusion proving russia interfered to benefit Trump campaign, just as a cop can get one part of a murder investigation wrong and yet prove the case with the other 4 parts and the evidence in them.


--------------------

• Beyond the ICA review, the Committee conducted its own multi-year investigation (2017–2020).
• They:
  • Collected hundreds of witness interviews (classified and unclassified).
  • Reviewed millions of pages of documents from U.S. government agencies, the Trump campaign, social media companies, and others.
  • Issued five volumes covering different aspects of Russian interference, the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians, and vulnerabilities in the election system.
• Much of the investigative work in Volumes 1–3 and 5 had little to do with the ICA review — it involved their own fact-finding.

Bottom line:
The Senate report drew overall on a much broader investigation — involving their own interviews, subpoenas, document reviews, and separate analysis of Russian activities, social media operations, and potential vulnerabilities in the election process. The ICA review was one part of a five-volume, multi-year inquiry, not the sole basis for the Senate’s findings.

And they relied also on a flawed 2017 ICA They trusted the FBI CIA AND to not have their thumbs on the scale. They were wrong. The CIA relied on flawed intelligence and went over the objection of several intelligence. analyst. Brenner shut out the usual analyst because they did not want the Steele dossier and other pieces of unreliable intelligence included in the ICA. Brennen hand picked four analysts that wrote the 2017 ICA using the Steele dossier even though he knew at the time Hillary had constructed it and it was fake. . The Dutch hacked the Russians and they said the Russians had no preference for Hillary and in fact they thought she was more predictable than Trump and would be the eventual winner.

 

[Based Chad]

Why would we put a sex predictor along side great men??????

sex predictor?!

epic.

sex predictor says: NOT BLOODY LIKELY!

 

[FastLane]

Flaws in ICA have zero bearing on the rest of the data used to draw the conclusion proving russia interfered to benefit Trump campaign, just as a cop can get one part of a murder investigation wrong and yet prove the case with the other 4 parts and the evidence in them.


--------------------

• Beyond the ICA review, the Committee conducted its own multi-year investigation (2017–2020).
• They:
  • Collected hundreds of witness interviews (classified and unclassified).
  • Reviewed millions of pages of documents from U.S. government agencies, the Trump campaign, social media companies, and others.
  • Issued five volumes covering different aspects of Russian interference, the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians, and vulnerabilities in the election system.
• Much of the investigative work in Volumes 1–3 and 5 had little to do with the ICA review — it involved their own fact-finding.

Bottom line:
The Senate report drew overall on a much broader investigation — involving their own interviews, subpoenas, document reviews, and separate analysis of Russian activities, social media operations, and potential vulnerabilities in the election process. The ICA review was one part of a five-volume, multi-year inquiry, not the sole basis for the Senate’s findings.

The intelligence from the Dutch that the Senators were not allowed to see sure had a big effect on their final decisions.

 

[QP!]

And they relied also on a flawed 2017 ICA They trusted the FBI CIA AND to not have their thumbs on the scale. They were wrong. The CIA relied on flawed intelligence and went over the objection of several intelligence. analyst. Brenner shut out the usual analyst because they did not want the Steele dossier and other pieces of unreliable intelligence included in the ICA. Brennen hand picked four analysts that wrote the 2017 ICA using the Steele dossier even though he knew at the time Hillary had constructed it and it was fake. . The Dutch hacked the Russians and they said the Russians had no preference for Hillary and in fact they thought she was more predictable than Trump and would be the eventual winner.

once again, having 5 avenues of investigation where one is flawed DOES NOT invalidate the other 4.

If police think you went to McDonalds before you murdered someone and everything proves true but it ends up being Burger king you went to and not McDonalds, that does not invalidate the guilty verdict.

The Senate Investigation and its proofs and conclusion stand.

 

[FastLane]

once again, having 5 avenues of investigation where one is flawed DOES NOT invalidate the other 4.

If police think you went to McDonalds before you murdered someone and everything proves true but it ends up being Burger king you went to and not McDonalds, that does not invalidate the guilty verdict.

The Senate Investigation and its proofs and conclusion stand.

 

[QP!]

--------------------

Bottom line:
The Senate report drew overall on a much broader investigation — involving their own interviews, subpoenas, document reviews, and separate analysis of Russian activities, social media operations, and potential vulnerabilities in the election process. The ICA review was one part of a five-volume, multi-year inquiry, not the sole basis for the Senate’s findings.

• Beyond the ICA review, the Committee conducted its own multi-year investigation (2017–2020).
• They:
  • Collected hundreds of witness interviews (classified and unclassified).
  • Reviewed millions of pages of documents from U.S. government agencies, the Trump campaign, social media companies, and others.
  • Issued five volumes covering different aspects of Russian interference, the Trump campaign’s interactions with Russians, and vulnerabilities in the election system.
• Much of the investigative work in Volumes 1–3 and 5 had little to do with the ICA review — it involved their own fact-finding.

 

[Into the Night]

once again, having 5 avenues of investigation where one is flawed DOES NOT invalidate the other 4.

If police think you went to McDonalds before you murdered someone and everything proves true but it ends up being Burger king you went to and not McDonalds, that does not invalidate the guilty verdict.

The Senate Investigation and its proofs and conclusion stand.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Attempted proof by circular.

 

[archives]

False authority fallacies. Currently charged tariffs are part of US law, not the BBC or some wacky website.

Too funny, ad hominem fallacy ^, deflection fallacy ^, invincible ignorance fallacy ^, etc, etc, etc, “pigeon” is so wrong with his fallacy bullshit just about anything off of his Google list of fallacies will do

And by the way, neither site is “wacky,” both recognized legitimate sources, and current tariffs are public knowledge, duh

 

[Into the Night]

Too funny, ad hominem fallacy ^,

Your fallacies are not an insult, anchovies. They are simply your fallacies. You made them. You own 'em.

deflection fallacy ^,

Deflection from what? You weren't presenting any valid argument, anchovies.

invincible ignorance fallacy ^

Denial of logic. Stop making shit up.

, etc, etc, etc, “pigeon” is so wrong with his fallacy bullshit just about anything off of his Google list of fallacies will do

Denial of logic. Google is not a list of fallacies. Your fallacies are YOUR fallacies. You can't blame them on Google!

And by the way, neither site is “wacky,” both recognized legitimate sources, and current tariffs are public knowledge, duh

False authority fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting). The BBC and a wacky website is not a valid authority.

 

[archives]

Your fallacies are not an insult, anchovies. They are simply your fallacies. You made them. You own 'em.

Deflection from what? You weren't presenting any valid argument, anchovies.

Denial of logic. Stop making shit up.

Denial of logic. Google is not a list of fallacies. Your fallacies are YOUR fallacies. You can't blame them on Google!

False authority fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting). The BBC and a wacky website is not a valid authority.

NEXT