*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1660 on: June 11, 2017, 01:35:22 PM »
all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.

Well, yeah.
I mean, it's like the only thing they have to go with that they can spin to their site.  Plus Trump took it away with "He's the leaker!" when... yeah, he leaked his own stuff that was unclassified.  And it wasn't even like government information, it was just about a chat he had with Trump.  So they gotta spin it as "Comey is an evil person who leaks information, just like those russian guys that leaked the DNC emails.  So evil..."
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1661 on: June 11, 2017, 02:59:33 PM »
"Comey is an evil person who leaks information, just like those russian guys that leaked the DNC emails.  So evil..."

lol i think you mean "unlike those russian heroes who saved us from electing a democrat."
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1662 on: June 11, 2017, 03:07:21 PM »
all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.
Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1663 on: June 11, 2017, 03:13:22 PM »
all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.
Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?
They don't.. they elected Trump, after all.



If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1664 on: June 11, 2017, 03:49:27 PM »
Quote
<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.

Re: Trump
« Reply #1665 on: June 11, 2017, 03:50:08 PM »
all the gop pearl-clutching over comey sharing his memos is fucking hilarious.  apparently sharing your own unclassified notes with someone is a greater moral evil than stealing private emails from a political party.
Does it surprise you that many Americans might take an insider threat as more urgent than an outsider threat?

it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1666 on: June 11, 2017, 04:13:30 PM »
it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power.
Right, so you're not planning on answering my question, then? Delightful.

They don't.. they elected Trump, after all.
There never was any reason (and to date there is no reason) to suggest that Trump is an insider threat.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1667 on: June 11, 2017, 04:26:40 PM »
Trump isn't an insider threat, but Comey totally is. lol okay
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1668 on: June 11, 2017, 04:28:49 PM »
Trump isn't an insider threat, but Comey totally is. lol okay
One of them is leaking the details of how your secret services operate to the general public :) :) :)

But no, I didn't say he is one. As always, I am a fan of operating under the presumption of innocence, a concept apparently difficult for some Americans to grasp. Nice try, though.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 04:31:07 PM by SexWarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1669 on: June 11, 2017, 04:30:27 PM »
it surprises me that any americans consider james comey's completely legal and ethical documentation of unclassified conversations, over which the executive asserted no privilege, to be any kind of "threat," let alone a greater threat than the theft and release of private emails from a political party during an election cycle by a foreign power.
Right, so you're not planning on answering my question, then? Delightful.

you asked a loaded question of which i am obviously denying the premise.  that said, i think i was quite clear:

1) i am surprised that anyone thinks james comey is more of a threat to our national security than russian intelligence.
2) i am surprised that anyone considers james comey a threat to...anything.

were you really not able to get that from my post?
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1670 on: June 11, 2017, 04:33:08 PM »
you asked a loaded question of which i am obviously denying the premise
What premise? The GOP is accusing him of being an insider threat. That's pretty much a fact at this stage, don't you agree?

1) i am surprised that anyone thinks james comey is more of a threat to our national security than russian intelligence.
2) i am surprised that anyone considers james comey a threat to...anything.
Neither of these come even remotely close to answering my question. I was hoping to get a "yes" or a "no", perhaps with some optional follow-up.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1671 on: June 11, 2017, 04:55:33 PM »
What premise? The GOP is accusing him of being an insider threat. That's pretty much a fact at this stage, don't you agree?

Nah, it's just a meme. We don't need to discuss it any further.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Re: Trump
« Reply #1672 on: June 11, 2017, 05:05:23 PM »
you asked a loaded question of which i am obviously denying the premise
What premise? The GOP is accusing him of being an insider threat. That's pretty much a fact at this stage, don't you agree?

the premise that comey is a threat to national security.  i agree that the gop says that he is.  i disagree that he actually is.  i'm also extremely skeptical that anyone in the gop actually believes that he is.  the law on the matter is well-settled; everything he did was perfectly legal.

Neither of these come even remotely close to answering my question. I was hoping to get a "yes" or a "no", perhaps with some optional follow-up.

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because it surprises me that anyone would consider james comey, or his actions, to be a threat to national security.  or anything at all, really.  was that really not clear to you from my answer?

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me that any americans might take this internal 'threat' as more urgent than this external threat.  i assume we're talking about this specific situation and not some vague hypothetical possible threats.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 05:19:31 PM by garygreen »
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1673 on: June 11, 2017, 05:11:28 PM »
Quote
<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.
1. That's not what was asked.
2. If that's what he'd say under oath then it still doesn't fit.  Ex:

"Mr. President, did you ask for loyalty from former director James Comey?"
"I hardly know the man.  I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.  Who would do that?  Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?  Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other."

Still doesn't make sense.


They don't.. they elected Trump, after all.
There never was any reason (and to date there is no reason) to suggest that Trump is an insider threat.
He's an idiot who runs his mouth and his twitter to the bane of everyone around him.
He's a threat, just not like spy threat.  More like "he's gonna fuck up America" threat.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1674 on: June 11, 2017, 05:34:14 PM »
the premise that comey is a threat to national security.
Well, that's not a premise of my question.

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because it surprises me that anyone would consider james comey, or his actions, to be a threat to national security.  or anything at all, really.  was that really not clear to you from my answer?

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me that any americans might take this internal 'threat' as more urgent than this external threat.  i assume we're talking about this specific situation and not some vague hypothetical possible threats.
You continue to dodge my question. I'm asking you whether or not you're surprised that an insider threat may be viewed as more urgent than an outside threat.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: Trump
« Reply #1675 on: June 11, 2017, 05:40:28 PM »
You continue to dodge my question.

it surprises me

1) i am surprised
2) i am surprised

yes, it surprises me.  it surprises me because

ninja edit: yes, it surprises me

ok


I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1676 on: June 11, 2017, 05:49:55 PM »
It depends on the threat, geeze.


A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1677 on: June 11, 2017, 05:58:13 PM »
Quote
<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.
1. That's not what was asked.
2. If that's what he'd say under oath then it still doesn't fit.  Ex:

"Mr. President, did you ask for loyalty from former director James Comey?"
"I hardly know the man.  I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.  Who would do that?  Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?  Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other."

Still doesn't make sense.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath. He is responding to the question "Would you be willing to speak under oath" which immediately preceded his response, not the question you made up, and not the question trekky made up on the previous page. Read the transcript. It's right there in your quote. It's right there. Why would you just make things up?

Trump first mocks the assertion of demanding a pledge of allegiance from someone you barely know and then questions why he would go under oath and announce that he demanded allegiance from someone he barely knew. It is a ridiculous  scenerio to ask for allegiance from someone you don't know. He never asked for that, and he wouldn't say that he did under oath.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2017, 06:21:58 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Trump
« Reply #1678 on: June 11, 2017, 05:59:37 PM »
It depends on the threat, geeze.


A fucking nuke from North Korea is a bigger threat than a god damn contractor leaking presidential shit talk.

word.  and vice-versa, a dirty bomb planted in the white house is a bigger threat than economic sanctions by moldova.  i genuinely don't get why it's dodging the question to stick to things that actually happened.
I have visited from prestigious research institutions of the highest caliber, to which only our administrator holds with confidence.

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1679 on: June 11, 2017, 06:59:35 PM »
Quote
<blockquote>ABC’s JON KARL: I want to get back to James Comey’s testimony. You suggested he didn’t tell the truth in everything he said. He did say under oath that you told him to let the Flynn — you said you hoped you could let the Flynn investigation go.
TRUMP: I didn’t say that.
KARL: So he lied about that?
TRUMP: Well, I didn’t say that. I will tell you. I didn’t say that.
KARL: And did you ask you to pledge loyalty?
TRUMP: And there would be nothing wrong if I did say it read today but I did not say that.
KARL: And did he ask you for a pledge of loyalty from you?
TRUMP: No, he did not.
KARL: So he said those things under oath. Would you be willing to speak under oath and give your version of those events?
TRUMP: 100%. I hardly know the man. I’m not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance. What would do that? Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath? Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other.</blockquote>

The only context I can think of is he answers the question then goes back to rant about he original question, mixing "under oath" in there for some reason.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath.
1. That's not what was asked.
2. If that's what he'd say under oath then it still doesn't fit.  Ex:

"Mr. President, did you ask for loyalty from former director James Comey?"
"I hardly know the man.  I'm not going to say I want you to pledge allegiance.  Who would do that?  Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?  Think of that. I hardly know the man. It doesn’t make sense. No, I didn’t say that, and I didn’t say the other."

Still doesn't make sense.

Trump is talking about what he would say under oath. He is responding to the question "Would you be willing to speak under oath" which immediately preceded his response, not the question you made up, and not the question trekky made up on the previous page. Read the transcript. It's right there in your quote. It's right there. Why would you just make things up?

Trump first mocks the assertion of demanding a pledge of allegiance from someone you barely know and then questions why he would go under oath and announce that he demanded allegiance from someone he barely knew. It is a ridiculous  scenerio to ask for allegiance from someone you don't know. He never asked for that, and he wouldn't say that he did under oath.
You said he was talking about what he'd say under oath so I asked a hypothetical question he'd get if under oath and it didn't help.

See, MOST of what he said sounds like that.  Just a normal Trump rant about how he didn't say he asked for loyalty.  It's that "under oath" sentence that mucks it up.

"Who would ask a man to pledge allegiance under oath?"
Is the whole sentence.
If he's saying what he'd say under oath, why put a question?  That makes no sense.  Nor does it even fit if you put it into a statement.  If you remove the "under oath" part, it all fits fine.  But those two words just don't make sense in the context of the rant. 

He's ranting about how he wouldn't ask for loyalty.  But where does "pledge allegiance under oath" fit?  If you're answering a question while under oath, you wouldn't ask a question, would you?  And if he's describing the exchange between him and Comey, why add those two words in there? 

All signs point to "Trump thought Comey said he(comey) was under oath while talking to the president".
If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.