21 Feb 2019, 5:26 am
EzraS wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Since none of those indicted have been charged with Russian collusion, I'm still awaiting for this alleged "evidence." (I'm certain I will be waiting for a very long time.)
Indeed you will if you're waiting for an indictment with the words "the crime of collusion" on it, because there is no such thing as "the crime of collusion" in your laws. It's called other things, like being compromised by a foreign power and therefore a threat to national security, and treason, and words to that effect. You'll never see the word "collusion" on an indictment in America, they will use other words to describe the crimes Trump's campaign and administration has committed, like money laundering and tax fraud and working for a foreign power while serving in office and not disclosing that (can't remember the exact words for that one, but that's close enough for government work, as they say.)
But I know it doesn't matter how many times this is explained to you, you'll keep saying "no collusion" until they march Trump out of office and into a jail cell.
It's just being pointed out the fact that no evidence of collusion has been presented yet. The rebuttals to that from some been in the form of conjecture and prognostication.
Lots of evidence of collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign and administration has been presented to you repeatedly, you just refuse to acknowledge what is in front of your face. Collusion itself is not a crime, but there are several crimes (like money laundering) that would be colluding with Russia if they were done by Trump businesses to advance Russian business interests and clean up Russian oligarch money while doing political favours for Russia like removing sanctions (quid pro quo they call that, Russia gives Trump money to launder and some to keep for himself from Russian-connected banks and Trump removes sanctions so Russia can make more money). But like I said, you don't seem to understand that no matter how many times it's explained, so... hard to have a discussion with people who can't follow the facts of the case.
21 Feb 2019, 5:49 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 6:10 am
21 Feb 2019, 6:15 am
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 6:32 am
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
A few other members and myself have higher standards as to what qualifies as solid evedence. It is unlikely those standards will be lowered.
There's a difference between having high standards for evidence, and being willfully blind.
Where was that high standard of evidence when Trump made the baseless charge that Obama was spying on him in Trump Tower? I seem to recall many of the same people around here believing that hook-line-and-sinker. When Obama took an island vacation after passing the torch to Trump, there were the usual right wing voices claiming he and Michele went there to avoid extradition. Bear in mind, there was zero evidence for any of this.
I'm referring to is here now in this subforum regarding what qualifies as solid evidence of collusion with russia.
But does that travesty get a pass? We have US intelligence agents backing up claims of Russian collusion. Do you know where Trump got his information about Obama spying on him? A racist hack writer at Breitbart. One WP member even made the absurd claim that there was more evidence to support Trump's claims that Obama was spying on him than there was to support collusion!
21 Feb 2019, 8:04 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
A few other members and myself have higher standards as to what qualifies as solid evedence. It is unlikely those standards will be lowered.
There's a difference between having high standards for evidence, and being willfully blind.
Where was that high standard of evidence when Trump made the baseless charge that Obama was spying on him in Trump Tower? I seem to recall many of the same people around here believing that hook-line-and-sinker. When Obama took an island vacation after passing the torch to Trump, there were the usual right wing voices claiming he and Michele went there to avoid extradition. Bear in mind, there was zero evidence for any of this.
I'm referring to is here now in this subforum regarding what qualifies as solid evidence of collusion with russia.
But does that travesty get a pass? We have US intelligence agents backing up claims of Russian collusion. Do you know where Trump got his information about Obama spying on him? A racist hack writer at Breitbart. One WP member even made the absurd claim that there was more evidence to support Trump's claims that Obama was spying on him than there was to support collusion!
How absurd. That's like saying there's more proof of the easter bunny than there is of the tooth fairy.
21 Feb 2019, 12:11 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Since none of those indicted have been charged with Russian collusion, I'm still awaiting for this alleged "evidence." (I'm certain I will be waiting for a very long time.)
Indeed you will if you're waiting for an indictment with the words "the crime of collusion" on it, because there is no such thing as "the crime of collusion" in your laws. It's called other things, like being compromised by a foreign power and therefore a threat to national security, and treason, and words to that effect. You'll never see the word "collusion" on an indictment in America, they will use other words to describe the crimes Trump's campaign and administration has committed, like money laundering and tax fraud and working for a foreign power while serving in office and not disclosing that (can't remember the exact words for that one, but that's close enough for government work, as they say.)
But I know it doesn't matter how many times this is explained to you, you'll keep saying "no collusion" until they march Trump out of office and into a jail cell.
Well, it's become a circular conversation; you supporting what still amounts to a conspiracy theory, and me dealing with only the facts.
But to get back to the crux of my original comment: American disinformation should be our primary focus, rarther than all this Russia hysteria. What about the disinformation that flowed from the DNC and the MSM, designed to smear Bernie Sanders? How about the disinformation designed to smear Tulsi Gabbard, recently, with NBC actually calling her "and agent of Russian Propaganda? (The source from which they culled that nonsense has been totally discredited.)
We're constantly being barraged with disinformation from the MSM and politicians in epic proportions. Our democratic process was long subverted by corporate America. But yeah, Russia is responsible for giving us Trump. How about we actually examine the long road that got us here? How about we actually examine the fact the Democratic Party no longer represents an opposition party to the Republicans? Nah, let's ignore all that. We need a big, bad boogieman to pin it all in. It's very convenient -- and it deflects attention away from the REAL problem!
Again, it's the new McCarthyism, which you seem to buy into, hook, line, and sinker. That's your prerogative, I guess. I can only do so much to awaken you from your dream world.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 2:48 pm
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
EzraS wrote:
A few other members and myself have higher standards as to what qualifies as solid evedence. It is unlikely those standards will be lowered.
There's a difference between having high standards for evidence, and being willfully blind.
Where was that high standard of evidence when Trump made the baseless charge that Obama was spying on him in Trump Tower? I seem to recall many of the same people around here believing that hook-line-and-sinker. When Obama took an island vacation after passing the torch to Trump, there were the usual right wing voices claiming he and Michele went there to avoid extradition. Bear in mind, there was zero evidence for any of this.
I'm referring to is here now in this subforum regarding what qualifies as solid evidence of collusion with russia.
But does that travesty get a pass? We have US intelligence agents backing up claims of Russian collusion. Do you know where Trump got his information about Obama spying on him? A racist hack writer at Breitbart. One WP member even made the absurd claim that there was more evidence to support Trump's claims that Obama was spying on him than there was to support collusion!
How absurd. That's like saying there's more proof of the easter bunny than there is of the tooth fairy.
My point being, I seem to recall many of the same members supporting those spurious charges against Obama who are now defending Trump against collusion. Thus it really isn't a matter of holding higher standards, but with support of a particular political personality.
21 Feb 2019, 3:10 pm
21 Feb 2019, 3:19 pm
21 Feb 2019, 3:28 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 3:41 pm
21 Feb 2019, 3:45 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
21 Feb 2019, 3:48 pm
21 Feb 2019, 4:54 pm
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Since none of those indicted have been charged with Russian collusion, I'm still awaiting for this alleged "evidence." (I'm certain I will be waiting for a very long time.)
Indeed you will if you're waiting for an indictment with the words "the crime of collusion" on it, because there is no such thing as "the crime of collusion" in your laws. It's called other things, like being compromised by a foreign power and therefore a threat to national security, and treason, and words to that effect. You'll never see the word "collusion" on an indictment in America, they will use other words to describe the crimes Trump's campaign and administration has committed, like money laundering and tax fraud and working for a foreign power while serving in office and not disclosing that (can't remember the exact words for that one, but that's close enough for government work, as they say.)
But I know it doesn't matter how many times this is explained to you, you'll keep saying "no collusion" until they march Trump out of office and into a jail cell.
Well, it's become a circular conversation; you supporting what still amounts to a conspiracy theory, and me dealing with only the facts.
But to get back to the crux of my original comment: American disinformation should be our primary focus, rarther than all this Russia hysteria. What about the disinformation that flowed from the DNC and the MSM, designed to smear Bernie Sanders? How about the disinformation designed to smear Tulsi Gabbard, recently, with NBC actually calling her "and agent of Russian Propaganda? (The source from which they culled that nonsense has been totally discredited.)
We're constantly being barraged with disinformation from the MSM and politicians in epic proportions. Our democratic process was long subverted by corporate America. But yeah, Russia is responsible for giving us Trump. How about we actually examine the long road that got us here? How about we actually examine the fact the Democratic Party no longer represents an opposition party to the Republicans? Nah, let's ignore all that. We need a big, bad boogieman to pin it all in. It's very convenient -- and it deflects attention away from the REAL problem!
Again, it's the new McCarthyism, which you seem to buy into, hook, line, and sinker. That's your prerogative, I guess. I can only do so much to awaken you from your dream world.
I don't disagree with you that money is too involved in politics (that is true in America and it is true in my own country, as well). Our democracies are indeed flawed and there are areas, like election law, where they could use some serious fine-tuning.
But if you really think I'm embroiled in "conspiracy theories" and you can't reach me with your Russian propaganda, why are you spamming up my thread with it?
Like, don't let the door hit you on the way out, friend.
21 Feb 2019, 5:29 pm
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Since none of those indicted have been charged with Russian collusion, I'm still awaiting for this alleged "evidence." (I'm certain I will be waiting for a very long time.)
Indeed you will if you're waiting for an indictment with the words "the crime of collusion" on it, because there is no such thing as "the crime of collusion" in your laws. It's called other things, like being compromised by a foreign power and therefore a threat to national security, and treason, and words to that effect. You'll never see the word "collusion" on an indictment in America, they will use other words to describe the crimes Trump's campaign and administration has committed, like money laundering and tax fraud and working for a foreign power while serving in office and not disclosing that (can't remember the exact words for that one, but that's close enough for government work, as they say.)
But I know it doesn't matter how many times this is explained to you, you'll keep saying "no collusion" until they march Trump out of office and into a jail cell.
Well, it's become a circular conversation; you supporting what still amounts to a conspiracy theory, and me dealing with only the facts.
But to get back to the crux of my original comment: American disinformation should be our primary focus, rarther than all this Russia hysteria. What about the disinformation that flowed from the DNC and the MSM, designed to smear Bernie Sanders? How about the disinformation designed to smear Tulsi Gabbard, recently, with NBC actually calling her "and agent of Russian Propaganda? (The source from which they culled that nonsense has been totally discredited.)
We're constantly being barraged with disinformation from the MSM and politicians in epic proportions. Our democratic process was long subverted by corporate America. But yeah, Russia is responsible for giving us Trump. How about we actually examine the long road that got us here? How about we actually examine the fact the Democratic Party no longer represents an opposition party to the Republicans? Nah, let's ignore all that. We need a big, bad boogieman to pin it all in. It's very convenient -- and it deflects attention away from the REAL problem!
Again, it's the new McCarthyism, which you seem to buy into, hook, line, and sinker. That's your prerogative, I guess. I can only do so much to awaken you from your dream world.
I don't disagree with you that money is too involved in politics (that is true in America and it is true in my own country, as well). Our democracies are indeed flawed and there are areas, like election law, where they could use some serious fine-tuning.
But if you really think I'm embroiled in "conspiracy theories" and you can't reach me with your Russian propaganda, why are you spamming up my thread with it?
Like, don't let the door hit you on the way out, friend.
Yeah, it's not "your thread." It's a WP thread. I'll continue to have conversations with other, more reasonable folks as I see fit -- in this WP thread. I'll take the high road and stop all this ridiculous flaming. Perhaps we just bring out the worst in each other. Take care!
