• 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!

Russian-American lobbyist says he was in Trump son’s meeting

Status
Not open for further replies.
After skipping the idiocy, lies and distractions, your post boils down to this:
Slyfox696 said:
No, the point is JANFU said what the Trump campaign did was potentially illegal and for you to ask him to want the Clinton campaign prosecuted, when the situations are completely different for reasons I've already mentioned, is absurd.
Click to expand...
The comparison was to the charge of it being a 'campaign contribution.' You know, that subject you refuse to address. So here you go again ignoring the point I was making in order to attack me for something I didn't say. That is nothing more than dishonest trolling on your part. Are you actually going to comment on what I said, or do you plan to keep up your lying and trolling into September?
 
Fletch said:
After skipping
Click to expand...
Everything which proves you wrong. You could save me some trouble if you'd just admit to that when you post this, so I don't have to spend time correcting you.

The comparison was to the charge of it being a 'campaign contribution.'
Click to expand...
And, as I've said, what made the 'campaign contribution' to Trump illegal would not apply to Clinton and Brazile, so you asking JANFU if he also wanted them prosecuted was a dishonest comparison.

This really isn't that hard to understand. My post was very clear as to the problem I had with your post.

You know, that subject you refuse to address.
Click to expand...
I've addressed the point I was making the entire time. The problem is you know you were wrong so you keep trying to engage in fallacious arguments to avoid admitting how dishonest your comparison was.

Trump campaign went to receive information from a foreign national, which is the violation JANFU cited in the link in his post. Donna Brazille is not a foreign national (nor is a DNC primary a general election), so the law Trump campaign potentially violated does not apply to Clinton.

See, you showed your lack of understanding on the subject earlier in the thread when you said: "Both would be illegal since both were done in secret and not reported as campaign contributions."

This comment from you suggests you either don't understand what is being discussed or you don't care about the facts. What made Trump campaign's situation illegal was not about "secret" or "reported". It was the fact they received it from a foreign national in a general election. That's what the link in JANFU's post said and that's what made it illegal. And you replied to JANFU (not the other way around), so you were discussing what JANFU was discussing. What the Clinton campaign did does not equate to what the Trump campaign did because Brazile is not a foreign national and the DNC primary is not a general election.

I have told you this repeatedly. You know this. Stop trying to deflect from the dishonest comparison. If you want to claim the information is or isn't a campaign contribution, that's irrelevant to me (in our particular discussion at least). What IS relevant to me is the fact you made a dishonest comparison, when the two situations are nothing alike.

And you STILL haven't provided any evidence the Clinton campaign didn't report Brazile's information or that they are legally required to do so. Even though I've requested it of you every time you've made that charge, you have yet to support your position.
 
Last edited:
The relevant aspects of your posts are getting smaller and smaller. This is all that came out of your last one:
Slyfox696 said:
And, as I've said, what made the 'campaign contribution' to Trump illegal would not apply to Clinton and Brazile, so you asking JANFU if he also wanted them prosecuted was a dishonest comparison.
Click to expand...
The issue ISNT whether or not 'the campaign contribution' to Jr was illegal or not. The issue is whether or not it is a 'campaign contribution' at all. You know that, but you refuse to comment on that because it would expose your month long trolling spree for what it is. At this point you are compelled to continue your dishonest approach to the topic because your ego is to fragile to do otherwise. The good news is that at some point I will begin feeling sorry for you, but that will likely be a while yet.
 
Fletch said:
This is all that came out of your last one: The issue ISNT whether or not 'the campaign contribution' to Jr was illegal or not.
Click to expand...
The first issue is whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in illegal activities. You replied to JANFU and that was the crux of his post. You don't get to retroactively reclassify the discussion which was being had.

And then the issue between us was your dishonest comparison. You keep trying to build strawman arguments to deflect from the dishonesty of your comparison, but that's just because you know your comparison was dishonest, for reasons I've mentioned multiple times.

The issue is whether or not it is a 'campaign contribution' at all.
Click to expand...
No, the issue between us was your dishonest comparison.

JANFU posted that what the Trump campaign did may have been illegal. He posted twice on that topic. You tried to claim it wasn't and in your attempt to do so, you used a dishonest comparison. I pointed out the dishonesty of your comparison and that's where we've been ever since.

This isn't hard to understand. Your comparison was dishonest, just like I said. And no amount of deflection or strawman arguments will change that. I suggest you merely own up to your dishonest comparison and then you can continue with whomever you like about whether information SHOULD be a campaign contribution or not. But what you cannot do is say what made the Trump campaign's actions illegal apply equally to the Clinton campaign, which is what you tried to do at first. That is a dishonest comparison.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
The first issue is whether or not the Trump campaign engaged in illegal activities. You replied to JANFU and that was the crux of his post. You don't get to retroactively reclassify the discussion which was being had.
Click to expand...
Nice try, but the quote from the link was 'illegal campaign contribution.' Rather than address that, you just lie about it. Over and over and over. Perhaps you would like to address it now? Oh that right, you cant. Because it would destroy your position completely and show what a fool you have been making of yourself. Somehow you think that continuing to lie is better for your reputation than telling the truth. Clearly you have made that calls but that really shreds what is left of your reputation. . You know, I am beginning to feel bad for James Spader. He must be thrilled that you, of all people, chose his face as your avatar. Poor guy.
 
Fletch said:
Nice try, but the quote from the link was 'illegal campaign contribution.'
Click to expand...
You must love having me prove you wrong, as you ask for it so often.
JANFU said:
Nope- Attending a meeting to gain dirt may be considered a violation of campaign law.
Click to expand...

Over and over and over. Perhaps you would like to address it now?
Click to expand...
I'll address anything you'd like as soon as you stop deflecting and instead address what I have been talking about this entire time, which was the dishonest comparison you used in your second response to JANFU.

Are you going to address the fact your comparison was dishonest or not?
 
Slyfox696 said:
You must love having me prove you wrong, as you ask for it so often.
Click to expand...
Lol. The only thing you have proven in this thread is what a dishonest poster you are. This post only reinforces that. The post from Janfu that you quote led to a post from me that contained no commentary but two separate questions. The post that has had you inflamed for the past month you conveniently ignore. Why? Because posting it will make you look stupid. But its a little too late to prevent that from happening now, isn't it.


I'll address anything you'd like as soon as you stop deflecting and instead address what I have been talking about this entire time, which was the dishonest comparison you used in your second response to JANFU.

Are you going to address the fact your comparison was dishonest or not?
Click to expand...
More dishonesty. I have addressed it a hundred times, in fact, that is all we have been talking about. Yet now you claim it hasn't happened. Here is the quote from the link that started this whole mess oh so long ago.

"In a complaint filed to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the Justice Department, Common Cause, the Campaign Legal Center and Democracy 21 allege that accepting and attending the meeting amounted to soliciting an illegal campaign contribution from a foreign national."

I highlighted the central phrase so that even you cant pretend not to see it. The issue is, was and shall continue to be whether information is considered a 'campaign contribution.' That is what brought me into this thread and that is what has been the content of my posts. You have never addressed it and you wont now. You would rather engage in dishonesty and trolling rather than face the substance of my posts because you think it will save you from looking foolish. It hasn't. And it wont.
 
I feel sorry for Putin now - previously he was the center of attention for the entire Lefty media establishment, responsible for all evil in the universe. Now suddenly he's been totally forgotten and displaced from the headlines by Confederate statues. The only way Putin can regain his former notoriety is if someone can build a statue of him holding the Confederate flag, while whipping a trans-gendered slave -- Nancy Pelosi would orgasm if she saw that.
 
Fletch said:
Lol.
Click to expand...
That must be a yes.
The only thing you have proven in this thread
Click to expand...
Is that your comparison was dishonest. Which is the only thing I've sought to prove.

The post from Janfu
Click to expand...
Was the topic upon which you and he discussed. As such, when you try to compare what the Clinton campaign did to what the Trump campaign did, it is a dishonest comparison.

The post that has had you inflamed for the past month you conveniently ignore.
Click to expand...
Wait, wait, wait......wait...

You literally just said I've been addressing your post for a month but that I'm ignoring it.

Do you even realize how utterly absurd that is? How can I be addressing the dishonest comparison in your post for a month yet also be ignoring it? That doesn't make sense.

Why? Because posting it will make you look stupid.
Click to expand...
I have no problem posting any post from that discussion. Here:
JANFU said:
Nope- Attending a meeting to gain dirt may be considered a violation of campaign law. They went to the meeting expecting value. Just because they did not receive it, means to use a legal term- Squat.
Click to expand...
Fletch said:
Can you name anyone ever prosecuted for receiving this sort of 'value?' And if you want to start classifying information as a value under campaign finance law, what campaign or candidate is innocent?
Click to expand...
JANFU said:
I stated MAY, did you miss that??? So stop with the deflection- try and research it yourself. You do have Google??
Watchdogs to DOJ: Trump Jr. meeting broke campaign finance laws | TheHill
Click to expand...
Fletch said:
Why so angry? I just asked a question, no need to spaz out. But tell me, were you calling for prosecution when the Clinton campaign received something of value from Donna Brazile in the form of debate questions? No, of course you weren't. So rather than just react to every bit of nonsense you hear on MSNBC, think for yourself for a moment, put your hatred of Trump aside and consider the ramifications to considering information as value to be regulated by campaign finance laws.
Click to expand...
I removed the linkbacks in JANFU's post so his UserCP isn't loaded with being quoted. Your backlinks I didn't care as much because you are an active participant in this discussion, whereas JANFU isn't, and anyone can use the linkbacks to your posts to linkback to JANFU's.

The big bold letters in your last post is what I've been knocking this entire time. Based on the posts made by JANFU, including the link in his second post, there would be absolutely no reason for JANFU to call for the prosecution of the Clinton campaign since Brazile is not a foreign national (which was EXACTLY the issue cited in JANFU's link) and a DNC primary is not a general election.

I have no problem at all posting everything which happened before my initial post. You know why? Because I've been right this entire time. You won't address what I was actually talking about because you know your comparison was dishonest. You keep trying to deflect the conversation into a red herring about whether or not information is a campaign contribution. But that was never what I was discussing (though if you'd like to, I'd be happy to do so once you acknowledge your comparison was dishonest). And what made what the Trump campaign did potentially illegal was not the fact they went looking for information (as campaigns do all the time) but the fact the information came from a foreign national in a general election. Campaigns receive contributions, including information, all the time from Americans. A campaign receiving something of value, including information, is not illegal by itself. It's the fact it came from a foreign national which is what made it potentially illegal. And that's why you keep trying to deflect the conversation into your red herring.

The conversation between us is about your dishonest comparison. How come you won't address the actual arguments I made? Is it because you know trying to defend your dishonest comparison "will make you look stupid"?
 
Slyfox696 said:
The big bold letters in your last post is what I've been knocking this entire time. Based on the posts made by JANFU, including the link in his second post, there would be absolutely no reason for JANFU to call for the prosecution of the Clinton campaign since Brazile is not a foreign national (which was EXACTLY the issue cited in JANFU's link) and a DNC primary is not a general election.
Click to expand...
Both irrelevant to the point I was making. As I have told. And told you. And told you. The issue is the claim that what Jr. received was considered a 'campaign contribution.' Until you address that--which you refuse to do--you will not have addressed my post. Lying and trolling is all you have done for the past month and it clearly shows no signs of letting up.
 
Slyfox696 said:
That must be a yes.
Is that your comparison was dishonest. Which is the only thing I've sought to prove.

Was the topic upon which you and he discussed. As such, when you try to compare what the Clinton campaign did to what the Trump campaign did, it is a dishonest comparison.

Wait, wait, wait......wait...

You literally just said I've been addressing your post for a month but that I'm ignoring it.

Do you even realize how utterly absurd that is? How can I be addressing the dishonest comparison in your post for a month yet also be ignoring it? That doesn't make sense.

I have no problem posting any post from that discussion. Here:




I removed the linkbacks in JANFU's post so his UserCP isn't loaded with being quoted. Your backlinks I didn't care as much because you are an active participant in this discussion, whereas JANFU isn't, and anyone can use the linkbacks to your posts to linkback to JANFU's.

The big bold letters in your last post is what I've been knocking this entire time. Based on the posts made by JANFU, including the link in his second post, there would be absolutely no reason for JANFU to call for the prosecution of the Clinton campaign since Brazile is not a foreign national (which was EXACTLY the issue cited in JANFU's link) and a DNC primary is not a general election.

I have no problem at all posting everything which happened before my initial post. You know why? Because I've been right this entire time. You won't address what I was actually talking about because you know your comparison was dishonest. You keep trying to deflect the conversation into a red herring about whether or not information is a campaign contribution. But that was never what I was discussing (though if you'd like to, I'd be happy to do so once you acknowledge your comparison was dishonest). And what made what the Trump campaign did potentially illegal was not the fact they went looking for information (as campaigns do all the time) but the fact the information came from a foreign national in a general election. Campaigns receive contributions, including information, all the time from Americans. A campaign receiving something of value, including information, is not illegal by itself. It's the fact it came from a foreign national which is what made it potentially illegal. And that's why you keep trying to deflect the conversation into your red herring.

The conversation between us is about your dishonest comparison. How come you won't address the actual arguments I made? Is it because you know trying to defend your dishonest comparison "will make you look stupid"?
Click to expand...

That is a damned good spanking.
 
Fletch said:
Both irrelevant to the point I was making.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making is that your comparison was dishonest. Are you going to admit it or not?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Irrelevant to the point I was making. The point I was making is that your comparison was dishonest. Are you going to admit it or not?
Click to expand...

Why would I admit that? It wasn't dishonest. If what Jr. got is to be classified as a 'campaign contribution' then what Hillary got was a 'campaign contribution' as well. That was my point. There is nothing dishonest about that. In fact, its rather obvious. The dishonesty here emanates entirely from you. But that is also rather obvious and has been for more then a month now.
 
Fletch said:
Why would I admit that? It wasn't dishonest. If what Jr. got is to be classified as a 'campaign contribution' then what Hillary got was a 'campaign contribution' as well. That was my point. There is nothing dishonest about that. In fact, its rather obvious. The dishonesty here emanates entirely from you. But that is also rather obvious and has been for more then a month now.
Click to expand...

lol...you wish.

If the core of that meeting---and, all that was said in that meeting will eventually come out, every note, every email, every phone call, every promise---was to discuss the Magnitsky Act and feelers to see how receptive the Trumps were to repealing it in exchange for damaging info on Hillary, that goes way beyond a "campaign contribution."
 
Fletch said:
Why would I admit that?
Click to expand...
Because it is true. Your comparison was dishonest. I've explained why numerous times now. You should go back and read all the times I've explained it if you don't understand.

It wasn't dishonest. If what Jr. got is to be classified as a 'campaign contribution' then what Hillary got was a 'campaign contribution' as well. That was my point.
Click to expand...
And it is a stupid point because receiving campaign contributions are not illegal, as I have repeatedly told you. Receiving campaign contributions from foreign nationals is what is illegal. I have explained this to you so many times your refusal to acknowledge it can not be chalked up to any explanation which portrays you in a flattering light.

Trump campaign received from a foreign national in a general election. Clinton did not (American in a primary). Thus, it is a dishonest comparison to ask JANFU to want Clinton campaign prosecuted under the law cited in his link which potentially applies to the Trump campaign.

So will you admit it was a dishonest comparison or not?
calamity said:
lol...you wish.

If the core of that meeting---and, all that was said in that meeting will eventually come out, every note, every email, every phone call, every promise---was to discuss the Magnitsky Act and feelers to see how receptive the Trumps were to repealing it in exchange for damaging info on Hillary, that goes way beyond a "campaign contribution."
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm sure any poster who would say such a thing, the comment to which you responded, is well aware of how absurd their position is on the subject. At this point, any poster who continues to say such ridiculous things is not doing it out of any desire for objective discussion.
 
Praxas said:
Yeah policy, not ass licking Putin for dirt on Hillary like your hero trump did. Trump supporters are pure garbage and have sold out their country to Russia. They should be ashamed of themselves but the fact they are pure scum prevents it. Each and every trump supporter is an enemy of America.
Click to expand...

Bwhahahaha!!

:lol:
 
Cardinal said:
The Russian lobbyist was also an ex-Soviet military intelligence officer.



Donald Trump Jr. meeting featured ex-Russia intelligence officer - Business Insider

It looks like we have had Clinton, Podesta and a whole bunch of people lying about their Russian collusion.

I'm absolutely shocked that more to the story is unfolding and that Jr. wasn't a hundred percent forthcoming.
Click to expand...

Aren’t we shocked to learn The Clintons have corrupted everything they touch, including the FBI.

That they have been lying as they always do?

Now we know “What Happened”.
 
zimmer said:
Aren’t we shocked to learn The Clintons have corrupted everything they touch, including the FBI.

That they have been lying as they always do?

Now we know “What Happened”.
Click to expand...

Did you purposely change my post?
 
Last edited:
zimmer said:
Aren’t we shocked to learn The Clintons have corrupted everything they touch, including the FBI.

That they have been lying as they always do?

Now we know “What Happened”.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to pull?
What a dumb thing to do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom