- Joined
- Sep 25, 2012
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 341
- Location
- Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That wasnt the point
Pray tell, what was the point that ThoughtEx (AKA not you) was trying to make?
That wasnt the point
The Russians knew that Trump would make a nice patsy. Trump is a liar, a thief and a scoundrel; all documented. So what better person to represent the United States in the eyes of the Russians. Moreover, the Russians knew that the far right-wing are uninformed emotional knee-jerk reactionary nationalists who will believe most anything they read that is anti Democratic politics. Hence the infiltration of the NRA and the bots infiltrating far right-wing media.
In short, the far right-wing conservatives are the dopes of our time and the train wreck that was the 2016 presidential election that brought US Trump is the proof.
Your far right-wing trolling will have to be played out somewhere else.
I mean, I can show A LOT more that validates everything I've said, but I think you get the picture: you're had.
This article merely presents a collection of unrelated events and weaves them into a theory that they wish their minions to believe. (Much like liberals interpret the Mueller Report.) If you critically read the article, which Rolling Stones hopes you won't, you would see that they have not proven anything and they, perhaps inadvertently, admit this.
Even the title says "...decades long campaign..." This didn't start with Trump. Big surprise, the NRA and the equivalent pro gun organization in Russia met at pro second amendment events to wine and dine. Nothing in this article proves conspiracy or "infiltration."
"But Russia experts believe Torshin’s interest in U.S. gun culture masked a dark, ulterior motive. “It’s all a big charade, basically,” Glenn Simpson, founder of the research firm behind the infamous Steele Dossier, testified to the House Intelligence Committee. Much of what passes for civil society in modern Russia is, in fact, controlled by Putin. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published a January 2018 report on “Putin’s Asymmetric Assault on Democracy,” which describes how the Kremlin has “sought to co-opt civil society by ‘devot[ing] massive resources to the creation and activities of state-sponsored and state-controlled NGOs.”
No surprise here either. Except that RS uses Glenn Simpson as a source (with an opinion) but fails to mention why the "Steele Dossier" is "infamous." Conveniently leaving out the fact that even Comey admitted it was all BS. In other words: Hey libs, don't look behind the curtains to see that Simpson is not a credible source!
You take one part of one sentence "Trump is a liar..." in your overreaching statement in an attempt to prove your entire thesis and present an article from the Washington Post that many have pointed out contains numerous lies as well. The title attempts to mislead by stating over "10000" lies, thus baiting its liberal followers into assuming these are separate "lies" when in actuality they count, for example, his comments on "the wall" as 157 separate "lies".
Presumably this article presents some of the most egregious example of his "lies". (About 8 out of the "10000."):
“I would say Germany has not stepped up much, Germany’s paying 1 percent [to NATO], they should be paying much more than that. Well, think of it, 1 percent. So we protect Germany and then Germany takes advantage of us on trade.”
Trump is talking about 1% of Germany's GDP on defense, not the 15% that Germany contributes to NATO funding. At worse he is confusing some facts. This is not a "lie."
“'We had a really great time. There are those that say they have never seen the queen have a better time, a more animated time.”
This is not a credible claim Trump makes about his interactions with Queen Elizabeth II."
"...those that say..." Can the WP prove that Ivanka, Erik, and Sara Sanders did not say this to Trump? If they can't prove this without a shadow of a doubt then WP is lying. See how that works?
Now attempt to PROVE "...a thief, and a scoundrel." Or will we just see more of your moral superiority?
In other words, you can't really prove any of your derogatory comments and you do not wish me to continue pointing this out?
Very amusing.
It was George Papadopoulos and HIS visit with the Russians that inspired the investigation, not the Steel Dossier and a Russsian spy pleaded guilty, and she was indeed infiltrating the NRA: Maria Butina: 'covert Russian agent' will plead guilty over effort to infiltrate NRA | US news | The Guardian So the NRA has played "sucker" to Russian spying for some time.
Secondly, Trump has indeed lied over 10,000 times, the article proves that as well. So both The Rolling Stone and Washington Post articles verify what I said was true. If you don't like that, then convince them that they are wrong, not me. As a polished Trump apologist with less than a 1000 posts here, you're not very good.
Your opining and denials in no way disprove anything I've said, and let's not forget Trump university closing because of theft. So the label "scoundrel" fits Trump very well.
So I have proved my argument; you're welcome to try and disprove it.
And then the drink started to clap.
The Washington Post "fact checker" and Kessler are known liars regarding Trump and many other things. Your article proves nothing.
11 HUMONGOUS Lies Told By The Washington Post's Phony Fact-Checker | Daily Wire
The Washington Post Lied While Correcting President Trump's 1,950 Lies - Truthdig
Washington Post Reporter LIES About Trump, Says He Called Immigration ‘Poison’ | Daily Wire
Washington Post Fact Checker Inflates Trump Falsehoods | The Daily Caller
"Maria Butina: 'covert Russian agent' will plead guilty over effort to infiltrate NRA" This proves my point. You assume that because the Russian is pleading guilty "over effort to infiltrate" the NRA that the NRA was successfully infiltrated and then extrapolated that this was collusion in order to elect Trump. You connect a lot of dots that simply are not there. (Again, the same problem with Libs interpretation of the Mueller Report) Was the NRA convicted of collusion? Was Trump convicted of collusion? Is there any proof that Russian intervention is the reason that Republicans support Trump? Or perhaps millions of NRA members support the 2nd Amendment and therefore support individuals that agree with them?
If you micro-investigate every 3rd grade level speech or tweet that Trump has written there will certainly be inconsistencies, exaggerations and factual errors. Trump is very transparent and certainly sets himself up for criticism, especially by a mainstream media with an agenda. It is a shame that the media was not as critical of the prior administration. The transparency would have been refreshing.
I certainly cannot prove that Trump never told a lie, after all he is a politician now. I also can't prove that you never told a lie. Have you? That would be an attempt to prove a negative. The Washington Post and their fact checker present more of their assumed moral superiority designed to be consumed by virtue signaling liberals and apparently they have been very successful. I am not debating with the WP or Rolling Stones. I am debating with you. Apparently your ability to critically read RS and WP and develop an independent thought is limited and you would prefer I argue with them. That is understandable.
We will have to wait for final report regarding the Steele Dossier and how it was initiated and perpetrated. Your interpretation of the facts are misleading at best, or as the Washington Post would say...a lie.
You called Trump a thief. Show me where HE was convicted of THEFT. Perhaps he served jail time that I am unaware of. Or are you just lying.
I am not sure how the number of times I have posted is a consideration here. Apparently your moral superiority allows you to make judgments of quality based on your vast experience on DP.
"Your opining and denials in no way disprove anything I've said..." Again, it is not my job disprove what you said. You made a bold critical statement and the burden is on you to prove it. One does not need your vast experience on DP to understand that.
Your liberal there makes the same lazy mistake that most do. Trump and Putin's interests were aligned. They both wanted Trump to be President. There's no relationship between the two.
There's no causation. No votes were affected. Trump did not collude.
Sez you.
There is plenty of evidence for extensive collusion by Trump and his minions, with the Russians.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that his international friends are all dictators. He hates democratic leaders. He is a clear and present danger to our freedom, a wannabe dictator, a dangerous psychotic megalomaniac narcissist.
One has to be in deep denial, usually based in partisan blindness, not to perceive this.
I had the pleasure of discussing politics at a bar last evening with a total stranger. ....... As it turned out I had the advantage in that I actually read the report. He admitted that he had not, but had read "The Atlantic" "review" of the report. He also saw Mueller's recent 9 1/2 minute speech regarding the 450 page report.
His argument basically came down to: Putin/Russia wanted Trump to win, therefore, Trump is bad, immoral and trying to hide something. He stated at least five times, ...... This seemed to be his response anytime I tried to present a fact or counter argument.
In the course of our conversation he found it necessary to justify his moral superiority through obvious lies and mischaracterizations. ......
In the course of our discussion he argued that NPR was not a leftward leaning source of political news. He is entitled to his opinion. I listen to NPR just to get the other side. However, he sited as evidence that Devin Nunes has been on NPR as much as his Democratic opposition. ..... Nope, a quick search of NPR/Devin Nunes/interview (and various macerations of this) indicates no (certainly recent) interview with Nunes. ...
This gentleman is an obviously intelligent individual. He has a graduate degree and is employed by a large academic and referral hospital in a highly technical field. .....
Yet, he wanted to debate the Mueller Report without having read it! He sited the "Atlantic review." I searched again. I don't read the Atlantic but it appears that his source must be from their "Ideas" section. These "reviews" from various angles are just opinion pieces on the Mueller Report. Even the titles are obviously left leaning in my opinion. One rating site lists their news reporting as "accurate" and their editorializing as "center-left." Looks far left to me but I'll stipulate this could be an accurate rating. Why would a Liberal elite adhere to such a strong opinion without having independently looked at the facts? I found that I was constantly noting that I really couldn't argue with the way he "felt" about Putin/Trump, but, association does not imply that Trump is guilty of colluding with the Russians. He could not give the slightest information or any names associated with the obstruction issue but essentially quoted Mueller's brief comments that there were "ten" of them.
It is apparent to me that many Liberals tend to fall back on their virtue signaling arguments anytime actual facts will not support their long held opinion. Lying to justify your moral superiority doesn't seem like an effective tool. This gentlman denied watching MSNBC on any regular basis but much of his ideology seems right out of Rachel Maddow's commentary. Perhaps this is just a result of being exposed to liberal academia most of his life? Is it just that Liberal elites don't know any better as they are constantly surrounded by other Liberal elites with the same ideology? Has mainstream media managed to seep into the liberal/Democratic mindset in such a way that they are even unaware of it?
Search - The Atlantic
The Mueller Report Is an Impeachment Referral - The Atlantic
Remember "Air Raid Drills" in Schools From the 1950s and Early 1960s? I Do Remember Them! | LetterPile
Sez you.
There is plenty of evidence for extensive collusion by Trump and his minions, with the Russians.
Trump has clearly demonstrated that his international friends are all dictators. He hates democratic leaders. He is a clear and present danger to our freedom, a wannabe dictator, a dangerous psychotic megalomaniac narcissist.
One has to be in deep denial, usually based in partisan blindness, not to perceive this.
There is no evidence whatsoever. We've been through this again and again. Now on the Democrat side, yeah collusion to pay Russians to dig up dirt like piss videos and dumb things like that by the Hillary campaign.
Ruh oh...the DoJ IG believes Steele and his dossier.
Washington Monthly | DOJ’s Inspector General Report on Russia Delayed as Steele Found Credible
Trump was probably hoping the Horowitz report would usurp Meuller's testimony next week. But that doesn't seem likely now. hehehe
You don't even know why the delay is occurring.
Sure I do. The delay is/was occurring because the IG found Steele to be credible and wanted to extend the investigation into what he had to say. The IG report finding the Steele dossier credible is the opposite of what Trump was hoping for, is it not? I imagine Mueller and the FBI are very pleased to be exonerated as well.
You don't know what Steele was asked. You don't know that he found the dossier credible.
"...One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear...."
Trump 'dossier' author grilled by Justice Department watchdogs: sources - Reuters
I trust that Rueters verified their sources....
Yeah, and you still don't know what information they're talking about.
The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.
Steele’s dossier, made public in 2017, alleged that Moscow attempted to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and that there was potential collusion between Russia and Trump’s campaign, along with other unverified and salacious claims about the president....
Sure I do. It was about the Steele dossier. Duh!!
A bit of coincidence that the interview took place in London while Trump was visiting with the Queen. If he only knew. lol