• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2 White House Officials Helped Give Nunes Intelligence Reports

Cardinal said:
Last time I tuned in to a press briefing, Spicer's hands were clenched into little fists and his lips had completely retreated into one neat, straight line for his mouth. While I've heard that he enjoys his new celebrity status, I look at him with my own eyes and see a man who hates what he's doing.
Click to expand...

I would almost guarantee the man has joined a gun range since taking on this job. He can get his frustrations out by shooing little clay things.
 
tres borrachos said:
I would almost guarantee the man has joined a gun range since taking on this job. He can get his frustrations out by shooing little clay things.
Click to expand...
He goes to an arcade and breaks the Whack a Mole game.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Mac77 said:
They had actual burglers in custody linked to the white house

But there is no such verifiable physical evidence linking the russians to hacking of the DNC emails.

None, nada, zero
Click to expand...

What? The title of this thread is "white house officials helped give nunes intelligence reports," which you said was a "no story" because of "unverified sources." And then it turns out the story was accurate and had verifiable sources. How many times do I have to say this: rejecting the mainstream media is making Americans dumber. The reason Putin was able to sway our election is because we are stupid enough to believe made up tweets and propaganda on Russian sponsored and far right wing media outlets. But the New York Times is fake news even after the real news it reports has been verified.
 
JasperL said:
Not likely - if the story was made up, the WH and the named individuals are strangely not denying the story.

It's interesting that one of the sources outed by NYT was Ezra Cohen-Watnick, who McMaster wanted to dump but was overruled by Kushner and Bannon.... hmmmm....
Click to expand...

Sorry, assuming its true is not good enough

Without confirmation this is not a credible story
 
tres borrachos said:
I know what sour grapes means. What I have no idea about is why you would use the term "sour grapes" in response to a comment I made about a bunch of people following Jim Jones into a vat of Kool Aid. Yeah, I'm negative about Jim Jones because of sour grapes, because I really wanted to go to a jungle in Guyana so I could have drank poison from a dirty bathtub of purple powdered drink.

Do you even think before you post?
Click to expand...

considerable more then you have since nov 8th
 
Mac77 said:
Sorry, assuming its true is not good enough

Without confirmation this is not a credible story
Click to expand...

Sure it's credible. If you want to pretend all unflattering news coming out about the dysfunctional Trump WH is all Fake News, suit yourself.
 
JasperL said:
Sure it's credible. If you want to pretend all unflattering news coming out about the dysfunctional Trump WH is all Fake News, suit yourself.
Click to expand...

Its unsourced so it is unprovn and not acceptable as fact
 
Mac77 said:
Its unsourced so it is unprovn and not acceptable as fact
Click to expand...

OK. I don't agree but you can believe what you want - not as "fact" acceptable in a court of law, but it's credible for purposes of understanding these events which does not require fact proved beyond some significant burden of doubt. It makes sense, fits the facts, 100s of people know and can dispute the account, none have. Good enough.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
OK. I don't agree but you can believe what you want - not as "fact" acceptable in a court of law, but it's credible for purposes of understanding these events which does not require fact proved beyond some significant burden of doubt. It makes sense, fits the facts,

100s of people know and can dispute the account, none have. Good enough.
Click to expand...

You accept it because you want to think the worst about your enemies in the white house

I am not going to debate unsourced fiction spun by the lying liberal media.and neither should anyone else
 
Mac77 said:
You accept it because you want to think the worst about your enemies in the white house

I am not going to debate unsourced fiction spun by the lying liberal media.and neither should anyone else
Click to expand...

No, I accept it because it fits the facts we do know, it was widely reported in several major outlets, and no one who does know the truth pushed back even a little on the story.
 
Master PO said:
considerable more then you have since nov 8th
Click to expand...

Unlike you, I think before I post, which is why I wouldn't call it "sour grapes" when someone posts about a bunch of pathetic people following Jim Jones to their deaths.
 
JasperL said:
No, I accept it because it fits the facts we do know, it was widely reported in several major outlets, and no one who does know the truth pushed back even a little on the story.
Click to expand...

No, it was only widely repeated in media outlets.

But it was all the same unsourced material
 
tres borrachos said:
Unlike you, I think before I post, which is why I wouldn't call it "sour grapes" when someone posts about a bunch of pathetic people following Jim Jones to their deaths.
Click to expand...

your postings have taken a dramatic turn since nov 8 and my posting dealt with that and nothing more, so your Jim jones refernce as nothing to do with my comments
 
Master PO said:
your postings have taken a dramatic turn since nov 8 and my posting dealt with that and nothing more, so your Jim jones refernce as nothing to do with my comments
Click to expand...

You copied and highlighted my Jim Jones reference in your posting. If it had nothing to do with your comment, why did you highlight it?

My postings have taken no turn. I was smart enough to know Donald Trump should not be President over a year ago at the time I had an opportunity to cast a vote for him to be the Republican nominee, and didn't. My posts regarding Donald Trump have not changed one iota since he declared his candidacy.
 
tres borrachos said:
You copied and highlighted my Jim Jones reference in your posting. If it had nothing to do with your comment, why did you highlight it?

My postings have taken no turn. I was smart enough to know Donald Trump should not be President over a year ago at the time I had an opportunity to cast a vote for him to be the Republican nominee, and didn't. My posts regarding Donald Trump have not changed one iota since he declared his candidacy.
Click to expand...

based on your attempt at a correlation of two different people

your views on trump may have not changed, however how you convey it and deal with others over trump has.
 
Master PO said:
based on your attempt at a correlation of two different people

your views on trump may have not changed, however how you convey it and deal with others over trump has.
Click to expand...

It sounds like I'm making you cry a lot, Ernst. My suggestion would be to stop reading my posts if they upset you so much. I'm not here to please others.
 
Nunes, a Trump fan and former member of the Trump transition team had a mission. After Comey dropped the bomb at the first hearing that Trump and his associates had been under investigation for possible collusion with Russia to affect the election, Nunes had to make sure nothing like that could happen again. So,

1. He did the "Mickey Mouse" operation, going to the white house reporting that certain folks had been "unmasked" under LE surveillance to give Trump possible cover for his insane tweets.
2. He cancelled the rest of his own committee's hearings with no explanation. My theory is that Nunes did that to make sure no more bombshell's unfavorable to Trump could be dropped.

Nunes' mission has been accomplished.

Nunes isn't working to investigate Trump he's working to exonerate Trump. I predict the same thing's going to happen with Burr in the senate. Burr was also a member of Trump's transition team.

Such stupid theater.
 
tres borrachos said:
It sounds like I'm making you cry a lot, Ernst. My suggestion would be to stop reading my posts if they upset you so much. I'm not here to please others.
Click to expand...

actually you make me sad tres, once a voice of reason, but now a voice of emotion
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom