*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1900 on: July 12, 2017, 11:45:26 PM »
What reasonable claims, specifically? I don't believe there's any potential theory or narrative that you wouldn't immediately dismiss as lol-memes, at least not if you're being intellectually honest.
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 #1901 on: July 13, 2017, 12:06:33 AM »
What reasonable claims, specifically?
That Russia may have unduly interfered with the election. Y'know, the thing that's being seriously investigated. I have been extremely clear (nay, explicit) about this with those who were willing to actually discuss things, as opposed to posting "funny" Trump faces as the peak of their rhetoric. Since you went through my posts to quote-mine me, you already know this.
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 #1902 on: July 13, 2017, 03:14:59 AM »
That's technically true, but only because of the specific wording. You dismissed concerns about Russian tampering too, just for a different reason:

Influenced how? If you mean that their media and leaders openly endorsed him and spread some dubious rumours worldwide to boost his popularity - sorry, that's hardly controversial. They can voice their views much like anyone else. The alternative would be censorship of the media, which would be a bigger issue.

So, yes, one can make a reasonable claim that Russia tried to influence the election, that Macedonian NEETs tried to influence the election, that Fox News tried to influence the election, that CNN did it, or even that garygreen did it. The reason why I don't find that notable is that while these claims are likely completely true, they're also simply business as usual.

So, you're hopping between the two extremes, then? What Russia might have done is too trivial to be concerned about, and what Trump might have done is too farcical to be concerned about. But you still support an investigation anyway. And in any case, Trump's potential culpability is and always has been a big part of Mueller's investigation, as you well know. There's no way you'd be so careless as to say that you support the investigation and take it for granted that we'd know that you only meant the part of the investigation that didn't focus on Trump.

In other news, lol:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/11/trump-junior-white-house-scandal-russia-240433
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/11/us/politics/russia-trump.html

I'll post the picture again, seeing how you're so fond of it. I even scaled it down, just for you:


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 #1903 on: July 13, 2017, 08:25:00 AM »
That's technically true, but only because of the specific wording.
Fucking lol. If we consider what I actually said, it's technically true. Clearly you have some magical insight into my positions that falls outside of the things I very clearly said.

Perhaps my posts here are also part of the meme-conspiracy? Maybe it's not me actually saying things, maybe it's TRUMP? Or worse, PUTIN?! Save me, Saddam, the world must know what I really think and you're the only person who knows!

So, you're hopping between the two extremes, then? What Russia might have done is too trivial to be concerned about, and what Trump might have done is too farcical to be concerned about. But you still support an investigation anyway.
That... is not even close to what the two paragraphs you've just quoted are saying.

The closest thing that I actually believe (but have not discussed in your quote at all) is that what we know Russia has done to date is trivial, and what we know Trump has done to date is non-existent from a legal standpoint. I support a proper investigation because I'd like to know more, act upon that knowledge in whatever way is appropriate, and move on.

You may also want to read a couple of posts above the one you've quoted. It was one of the times when I was extremely clear that I'm mocking you for your wacko conspiratorial views, and not for supporting the investigation that most of the world was on board with.

There's no way you'd be so careless as to say that you support the investigation and take it for granted that we'd know that you only meant the part of the investigation that didn't focus on Trump.
Careless? What?

Saddam, I have no idea what you're even talking about, but it sounds like you're under the impression that I don't want Trump to be investigated. I don't know how you reached that conclusion, since I've previously said that I do want for him and his campaign to be investigated.

Let me guess: that, too, is only a thing I've technically said?

I'll post the picture again, seeing how you're so fond of it. I even scaled it down, just for you:
Don't worry, I've adblocked it to make the thread readable without having to scroll for hours. What I was wondering about is why you're posting it? Do you find still photos of people talking funny? This could be great insight into your... peculiarities.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2017, 08:35:39 AM 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

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1904 on: July 13, 2017, 02:50:09 PM »
Crisis Averted.
You can blame Obama now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

No Trump is at fault anymore for this whole thing.  It was all Obama's fault for letting her in.
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 Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1905 on: July 13, 2017, 06:14:01 PM »
Crisis Averted.
You can blame Obama now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

No Trump is at fault anymore for this whole thing.  It was all Obama's fault for letting her in.

Memespiracy time! What if they let her in with the specific purpose of goading a member of Trump's team into collusion? Ooooooh...
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1906 on: July 13, 2017, 07:05:10 PM »
Memespiracy time! What if they let her in with the specific purpose of goading a member of Trump's team into collusion? Ooooooh...
Ooh, a conspiracy in which Obama is the villain? I'm in, where do I sign?!
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 #1907 on: July 14, 2017, 04:03:58 AM »
hehe I'll deliberately omit the part of his response that clarifies what he just said so he looks retarded

I would say "nice try," but it's not a nice try, it's a very weak and lazy try. Up your game. And on the off chance that you genuinely didn't understand me, I'm just saying that while you didn't dismiss concerns about Russia for being "unreasonable," you did dismiss them for being trivial. To put it another way, the premise was true, but the conclusion was false.

Quote
Perhaps my posts here are also part of the meme-conspiracy? Maybe it's not me actually saying things, maybe it's TRUMP? Or worse, PUTIN?! Save me, Saddam, the world must know what I really think and you're the only person who knows!

I can shitpost too. I just had ginormous knobbly poo. Its the type of poo you might only have once or twice a year. It was of good length but it was the shear girth I had trouble with. It feels as though my hole has been rubbed with a scouring brush and soaked in whiskey. Its in tatters.  A cool, refreshing, yet unsettlingly alien wind is now soothing my gaping chasm. My knees are quivering as I type and I feel a combination of exhaustion, relief and pride.

Quote
The closest thing that I actually believe (but have not discussed in your quote at all) is that what we know Russia has done to date is trivial, and what we know Trump has done to date is non-existent from a legal standpoint. I support a proper investigation because I'd like to know more, act upon that knowledge in whatever way is appropriate, and move on.

And now you're trying to move the goalposts again by slipping in a "to date," as if your position was nothing more than counseling patience. Several of us raised the possibility, not an ironclad conclusion that we could just skip the trial and execute Trump, but a hypothetical, something that could be true, might be true, that there may have been some collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - and you came down on that suggestion in the strongest possible terms. You called it insane, retarded, a meme, and compared it to Pizzagate. Your language wasn't even slightly vague or ambiguous. You weren't saying we were stretching, you weren't saying we were being hasty, you weren't saying we were wrong, you were saying we were out of our minds.

Quote
Saddam, I have no idea what you're even talking about, but it sounds like you're under the impression that I don't want Trump to be investigated. I don't know how you reached that conclusion, since I've previously said that I do want for him and his campaign to be investigated.

I reached that conclusion from your last post:

What reasonable claims, specifically?
That Russia may have unduly interfered with the election. Y'know, the thing that's being seriously investigated.

The obvious implication here is "as opposed to investigating Trump," given the context. If that's not what you meant, then you were being very unclear. But in any case - fine, let's try again. What reasonable claims, focusing on Trump's campaign and Russia, would you be supportive of investigating? Like I said, I don't believe there's anything you could say here that wouldn't fall into the very, very broad category of lol-memes that you previously dismissed.

Quote
Let me guess: that, too, is only a thing I've technically said?

Okay, so we're shitposting again. I don't drink whiskey at all. It gives me a sore arse. I remember drinking a load in a bar one night and I blacked out. Some guy had to give me a lift home. The next day I woke up and my bum hole was on fire.

I didn't learn my lesson, went to the same bar that week, did it all over again and blacked out again. Fortunately the same good samaritan was on hand to give me a lift home. But yet again I woke up with a raging ring piece.

Quote
Don't worry, I've adblocked it to make the thread readable without having to scroll for hours. What I was wondering about is why you're posting it? Do you find still photos of people talking funny? This could be great insight into your... peculiarities.

I do find the picture very funny, yes.
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1908 on: July 14, 2017, 09:25:05 AM »
Crisis Averted.
You can blame Obama now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/341788-exclusive-doj-let-russian-lawyer-into-us-before-she-met-with-trump

No Trump is at fault anymore for this whole thing.  It was all Obama's fault for letting her in.

Memespiracy time! What if they let her in with the specific purpose of goading a member of Trump's team into collusion? Ooooooh...
Apparently not the first people to come up with that....

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 #1909 on: July 14, 2017, 02:19:46 PM »
I'm just saying that while you didn't dismiss concerns about Russia for being "unreasonable," you did dismiss them for being trivial. To put it another way, the premise was true, but the conclusion was false.
Sorry, you're lying. Stop lying. Thanks.

I dismissed some concerns as trivial, yes. For example, when Rama said that Russia openly voiced support of Trump, I argued that that's not concerning to me, because we can't exactly stop heads of state or their national media to voice an opinion. Given how many times I've made it clear that I supported an independent investigation into this stuff, you're really not going to find it easy to spin this into me opposing the investigation. You've been trying to do this by pretending there's a contradiction in my statements, but so far you've had to rely on lies and omission. How about we drop those and get the ball rolling?

You accuse me of shitposting, but you've missed out on some nuance. The problem here is that your argument boils down to "Yeah, you technically said you support an investigation, but that's bullshit and you totally don't support one." In other words, you're accusing me of inaccurately representing my own views. That sort of claim, especially when I have absolutely no stake in this, is going to require some substantiation. So, no snark, no nothing: please explain why you think you know my thoughts better than I do.

And now you're trying to move the goalposts again by slipping in a "to date,"
Actually, there's been plenty of "to date"s and "unless new evidence emerges" in my previous postings. Here's one example, back from when Russia totally-definitely hacked the DNC:

As far as I'm concerned, no evidence has been presented to date. I'm not immediately dismissing CIA's and FBI's accounts, but I do it suspicious that so little detail has been presented for these accusations.

Ooh, look, here's the one where I'm calling you a Pizzagater! But wait, hhhhwhat's this in red?!

Until the situation changes (either your views adjust to the evidence available to date, or evidence emerges which yields your ideas some credence), I'll keep laughing at you for pursuing the left-wing equivalent of Pizzagate.

Several of us raised the possibility, not an ironclad conclusion that we could just skip the trial and execute Trump, but a hypothetical, something that could be true, might be true, that there may have been some collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia - and you came down on that suggestion in the strongest possible terms.
Once again, you lie.

You called it insane, retarded, a meme, and compared it to Pizzagate. Your language wasn't even slightly vague or ambiguous. You weren't saying we were stretching, you weren't saying we were being hasty, you weren't saying we were wrong, you were saying we were out of our minds.
Actually, these comparisons came in response to the article about Louise Mensch et al. Her (and your) claims were nothing like "there might be some collusion".

The obvious implication here is "as opposed to investigating Trump," given the context. If that's not what you meant, then you were being very unclear.
That conclusion is not only not obvious, but it strictly requires you to ignore everything I've been saying to you while you were busy calling Trump a Russian-controlled person. Then again, you probably have been ignoring everything I was saying.

But in any case - fine, let's try again. What reasonable claims, focusing on Trump's campaign and Russia, would you be supportive of investigating?
The possibility of undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof)? I don't understand, Saddam. Why are you asking me to name this over and over. I've agreed on this with people time and time again, even when I disagreed with them about everything else.

Like I said, I don't believe there's anything you could say here that wouldn't fall into the very, very broad category of lol-memes that you previously dismissed.
You don't believe in many things that actually happened, but we have a written record of this entire conversation, so your beliefs are somewhat irrelevant.

I do find the picture very funny, yes.
Saddam, "Yes" is not a very good answer to the question of "Why?" Please, focus for just a minute and try responding to, like, one thing that someone actually said.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 02:39:53 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

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1910 on: July 14, 2017, 02:53:56 PM »
If you're just going to keep denying what's clearly in your own posts, there's no point in this discussion continuing.

If Russia was eager to swing the election in favor of Trump, it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it.
Right, so you're completely open about suspecting a conspiracy. I'm glad we've established that.

That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.
It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction. To assume guilt without any evidence is utter madness, and to support the minority party attempting to completely paralyse the government under that excuse is more damaging than even the worst-case scenario of the meme-conspiracy.

This is what you said. You were very clear. Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you. And now not only are you changing your story, but trying to pretend that it was always your story.
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 #1911 on: July 14, 2017, 02:58:01 PM »
So you just quoted me saying that I oppose the presumption of guilt prior to evidence emerging, and that I staunchly oppose attempts to destabilise the government based on unsubstantiated rumour. Yeah, that's totally what you were asked to back up.

Saddam, you've tried to lie, and it didn't work because literally the entire conversation is right here in writing. It doesn't matter how many times you try to quote me, you can't make me look like I said things I didn't say.

Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you.
Sorry, where have I said that?
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 03:00:49 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

*

Offline honk

  • *
  • Posts: 3347
  • resident goose
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1912 on: July 14, 2017, 03:25:14 PM »
So you just quoted me saying that I oppose the presumption of guilt prior to evidence emerging, and that I staunchly oppose attempts to destabilise the government based on unsubstantiated rumour. Yeah, that's totally what you were asked to back up.

That's not what we were talking about, as the context makes clear. Nobody was in favor of skipping the investigation and convicting Trump immediately. It was an irrelevant aside that you threw in to muddy the waters.

Quote
Even the possibility of Trump colluding with Russia is paranoid and retarded, according to you.
Sorry, where have I said that?

it's entirely within the realm of possibility that one of the many Trump aides with ties to Russia might have been clued in to what was going on in order to take best advantage of it...That's not paranoid, it's not a meme, and it's not retarded.

It is all of those things, assuming you're speaking with genuine conviction.

If I had said "There may have been undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof), don't you think?" you would have relentlessly mocked that too and strawmanned it into "So you think Trump is the Manchurian candidate???"
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 #1913 on: July 14, 2017, 03:27:21 PM »
That's not what we were talking about, as the context makes clear. Nobody was in favor of skipping the investigation and convicting Trump immediately. It was an irrelevant aside that you threw in to muddy the waters.
Not convicting, no, but you did jump to conclusions and wanted to speak of him as a guilty man. Meanwhile, the DNC was disrupting government because of Trump's collusion with Russia - a thing that has not been proven to date. And you supported those moves. So no, nobody wanted to convict him, but some people did want to exact their own form of vigilante justice. And I will continue to oppose that through all means available to me (i.e. making fun of dumb people on the Internet). It was retarded, it was dangerous, it was ridiculous, and it was one of the main reason we had agreement on all sides of the debate that an independent investigation is necessary.

If I had said "There may have been undue communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government (or proxies thereof), don't you think?" you would have relentlessly mocked that too
No. You simply haven't said that. You always tried to piggyback more on top of it.

and strawmanned it into "So you think Trump is the Manchurian candidate???"
I'm not Rushy.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 03:31:26 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

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 4183
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1914 on: July 14, 2017, 03:36:31 PM »
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Lord Dave

  • *
  • Posts: 7653
  • Grumpy old man.
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1915 on: July 14, 2017, 03:48:02 PM »
www.thedailybeast.com/trump-team-met-russian-accused-of-international-hacking-conspiracy

Oh my.

ohhh, hacker?
NPR says just possible spy/counter intelligence officer.

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/14/537219554/donald-trump-jr-meeting-included-second-russian



But yeah, reading fox, it looks like they're official angle of blame is "Obama let them in so blame them." and pointing to all sorts of things like denied renewal on visa but given one anyway later on. 

Because, obviously the Obama administration and the Democrats had this trap for Donald Trump Jr. planned before Trump even got nominated.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2017, 03:50:54 PM by Lord Dave »
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 #1916 on: July 14, 2017, 04:00:23 PM »
ohhh, hacker?
NPR says just possible spy/counter intelligence officer.
He was accused of hacking, and then the accusation was withdrawn. Could go either way, I guess.
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 #1917 on: July 14, 2017, 05:14:23 PM »
Not convicting, no, but you did jump to conclusions and wanted to speak of him as a guilty man. Meanwhile, the DNC was disrupting government because of Trump's collusion with Russia - a thing that has not been proven to date. And you supported those moves. So no, nobody wanted to convict him, but some people did want to exact their own form of vigilante justice.

Using political manoeuvring to hamper the other party from passing legislation isn't exacting vigilante justice. The Republicans did it constantly for the past eight years. It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Trump
« Reply #1918 on: July 15, 2017, 10:15:06 AM »
The Republicans did it constantly for the past eight years.
For the record: I have no love for the Republicans' obstruction of Obama's administration. It was more or less as idiotic as the Democrats' actions these days, and just as contrary to the spirit of representative democracy. This is not a partisan issue.

It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.
Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

And he wasn't under investigation. That's why everyone was proposing an investigation as an alternative to Democratic vigilantism.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 10:32:57 AM 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 #1919 on: July 15, 2017, 11:43:53 AM »
It's also not presuming guilt to want to halt your opponent from passing legislation while they're under investigation.
Unless you're halting him from passing legislation while loudly screaming about how you're doing it because he's 100% guilty and disgraceful. By virtue of stating someone's guilt, you're making it pretty clear that you believe them to be guilty.

No Democrat in Congress is doing that. And few people here are doing it. People are of course skeptical and are saying that Trump might be guilty of collusion. Or that the evidence seems to point that way.


And he wasn't under investigation. That's why everyone was proposing an investigation as an alternative to Democratic vigilantism.

Hasn't James Comey stated that the FBI has been investigating the Trump campaign for the past year, since last July? But even if that weren't the case, again, political manoeuvring is not vigilantism, and no Democratic congressmen were stating Trump was certainly guilty.