Another pound of angus in the "nothing burger"

aloysious said:
So you didn't stop at hrc. Why lie when it's just as easy to tell the truth?
You underestimate how relieved I am she lost. I was as sure as you she'd win.
And no, you're not a mind reader.
Click to expand...
it was like a reprieve from the gallows.
Paris accords, political correctness, Syrian no fly zones, and 10's thousands of poorly vetted refugees didn't happen.
 
anatta said:
ridiculous. there is no innate opposition research designed "as to exclude corrupt or otherwise unqualified persons from positions of power". It's just normal campaign behavior. Nothing else.
I'm fairly sure what they did was illegal, but absent anything else that's all it was. a 1 time violation of election law.

You make these silly statements while ignoring the crap US campaigns pull off.
Swiftboating was a vile desecration of Kerry's war record done without foreign interference.
we are more then capable of eating our own- free from foreign interference
Click to expand...

You are a lousy reader, and subsequently, and inevitably, an even worse political analyst. Try again.

"This research, as done by U.S. actors, is presumed to be conducted with the best interests of the U.S. of A. in mind, so as to exclude corrupt or otherwise unqualified persons from positions of power." The difference between that, and collusion with foreign actors with their own agenda and interests in mind, should be so stark as to be unmistakable. Still, you missed it entirely.

Swift-boating Kerry had nothing to do with oppo research. It was a slanderous smear campaign with no basis in fact, other than Kerry actually having served on a swift boat, so as to attack what some perceived as Kerry's strength. Are you really so confused as to miss that difference as well?
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
Ah, I see. You still don't understand what happened. This is not about "oppo research". This research, as done by U.S. actors, is presumed to be conducted with the best interests of the U.S. of A. in mind, so as to exclude corrupt or otherwise unqualified persons from positions of power. Rather, it is about lil' Donnie, Manafort, and Kushner gleefully inviting a hostile foreign power to influence the U.S. Presidential election, fully intending to accept some "thing of value" from the Russian government via an intermediary.

That's the ballgame, A Nutter, your denials and deflections notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

https://theconservativetreehouse.co...officals-in-dc-on-june-14th-2016/#more-135589
 
PostmodernProphet said:
well no.....at that point no one had asked the Trumps to do anything.......to hope to receive "dirt" from a whistle blower is not attempted "collusion".......
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Just agreeing to accept "dirt" on Clinton, which Don Jr knew in advance that the Russian govt was involved in obtaining and providing, equates to cooperation with them. The Trump campaign obviously planned to use whatever the "dirt" was to influence the election outcome, which makes both parties complicit co-conspirators in the scheme.

It also proves that Russia was actively attempting to swing the election to Trump.

The question then becomes one of why Putin wanted Trump to win so badly.
 
Nomad said:
Bullshit.

Just agreeing to accept "dirt" on Clinton, which Don Jr knew in advance that the Russian govt was involved in obtaining and providing, equates to cooperation with them. The Trump campaign obviously planned to use whatever the "dirt" was to influence the election outcome, which makes both parties complicit co-conspirators in the scheme.

It also proves that Russia was actively attempting to swing the election to Trump.

The question then becomes one of why Putin wanted Trump to win so badly.
Click to expand...

You realize the DNC *actually* colluded with the Ukrainians against Trump, right?
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
You are a lousy reader, and subsequently, and inevitably, an even worse political analyst. Try again.

"This research, as done by U.S. actors, is presumed to be conducted with the best interests of the U.S. of A. in mind, so as to exclude corrupt or otherwise unqualified persons from positions of power." The difference between that, and collusion with foreign actors with their own agenda and interests in mind, should be so stark as to be unmistakable. Still, you missed it entirely.

Swift-boating Kerry had nothing to do with oppo research. It was a slanderous smear campaign with no basis in fact, other than Kerry actually having served on a swift boat, so as to attack what some perceived as Kerry's strength. Are you really so confused as to miss that difference as well?
Click to expand...

you don't get to cherry pick your own quotes and tell me I'm a lousy reader when I quote you directly!

Swiftboating was drummed up by opposition research, in fact that term is so wide there are all kinds of examples.

I remember Thomas Eagleton. Opposition research found out he had undergone hospitalizations for depression.
That 'scandal' made him withdrawal from the race, and made the McGovern campaign look amateurish.
We wound up with Nixon in 1972-an absolutely corrupt (to your point on exclusion) presidency so bad he had to resign

would it have changed the outcome? hard to say.
The point is we do opposition research to dig up dirt to win -
not some noble endeavor "as to exclude corrupt or otherwise unqualified persons from positions of power".
That's a ridiculous postulate.
 
Where do democrats think the "Russian dossier" came from? Remember Goldenshowergate? Spare me the faux indignation.

#WITCHHUNT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Alice in Liberaland said:
Where do democrats think the "Russian dossier" came from? Remember Goldenshowergate? Spare me the faux indignation.

#WITCHHUNT


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

I think all the parties involved, including John McCain, knew The Piss Dossier was junk but the Russian narrative [aka fiction] needed a shot in the arm at the time, so yeah.
 
anatta said:
you don't get to cherry pick your own quotes and tell me I'm a lousy reader when I quote you directly!
Click to expand...

You are not anywhere near idiotic enough to believe that my provision of the whole phrase is "cherry pick[ing]," whereas your picking part of that phrase is, what? Honest debate?

So, now you're down to lying again.

You seem, however, idiotic enough not to understand a crucial distinction under U.S. campaign law. The law prohibits foreigners from making any kind of donation, including the promise thereof, to U.S. campaigns, and, vice versa, prohibits any campaign from receiving any donation, or the promise thereof, from a foreign person. That is a matter entirely different from the use of such donation / thing of value in a subsequent campaign. Which is why hysterical hyperventilation about "but, but, there was the swift-boating" is monumentally stupid, irrelevant in the context of lil' ding-dong Donny accepting the promise of help for daddy's campaign from the Russian government.

As I said, you are a lousy reader, and, inevitably, a lousy political analyst. Your stubborn refusal to learn from those pointing it out (I am far from the only one) contributes to, and significantly exacerbates, the malaise.
 
Owl'd You're Up! said:
You are not anywhere near idiotic enough to believe that my provision of the whole phrase is "cherry pick[ing]," whereas your picking part of that phrase is, what? Honest debate?

So, now you're down to lying again.

You seem, however, idiotic enough not to understand a crucial distinction under U.S. campaign law. The law prohibits foreigners from making any kind of donation, including the promise thereof, to U.S. campaigns, and, vice versa, prohibits any campaign from receiving any donation, or the promise thereof, from a foreign person. That is a matter entirely different from the use of such donation / thing of value in a subsequent campaign. Which is why hysterical hyperventilation about "but, but, there was the swift-boating" is monumentally stupid, irrelevant in the context of lil' ding-dong Donny accepting the promise of help for daddy's campaign from the Russian government.

As I said, you are a lousy reader, and, inevitably, a lousy political analyst. Your stubborn refusal to learn from those pointing it out (I am far from the only one) contributes to, and significantly exacerbates, the malaise.
Click to expand...
calling me a liar, lousy analyst etc, is so childish on your part..it seems to be de reguire from your group.
I don't take your points seriously because of it..It's immature behavior, in that you can't attack my ideas without attacking me.
++
When you objected to Swiftboating as opposition research, I gave you the ex of Thomas Eagleton, and I showed you this concept of yours that opposition research is to exclude "corrupt or unqualified" (etc.) is junk noise

Your sentence had 2 parts to it.
this research, as done by U.S. actors, is presumed to be conducted with the best interests of the U.S. of A. in mind,
Click to expand...
I've told you I agree with this first part in that it appears to be a campaign violation ( election law).
and we have laws against foreign electioneering so we determine our leaders,not foreign powers

I've demonstrated the 2nd part is utterly specious -pulled out of your ass, but you can't let it go.
so as to exclude corrupt or otherwise unqualified persons from positions of power."
Click to expand...
^ that's absurd. Opposition research has no noble goals/acts. It's solely about power acquisition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top