• 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!

Trump and defending the indefensible

iguanaman said:
LOL You mean concentrating on tax cuts for the wealthy and drastic cuts to social programs much of the country depends on don't you? Even if Trump was not acting like Putin's bitch there is no way Democrats are going to cooperate with a radical right wing agenda. It's bad for the country and the opposite of what should be done. It's like you want to keep repeating all the mistakes of history over and over again until it kills us.
Seriously though, you really don't want the Putin controlling our nation do you? Do you realize that not one thing has been done by Trump to stop further meddling in future elections? That he had the nerve to suggest we "partner" with Putin on our own security? It is an imperative that we do something about it or we might as well move our Capital to Moscow.
Click to expand...

Think about it again. Maybe you will come up with something closer to my arguments.
 
katzgar said:
Trump is embarrassing that's for sure.

You got to wonder why all of the countries Trump has criticised over the last month's Russia is the one country that he's never criticized. Why is that?
Click to expand...

Yes the natural thing is to be extra tough on a foreign country that tried to help you win the election. Both to show that interference doesn't pay off and to prove you didn't have a part of it. Instead you have Trump discussing to form a cyber securiy unit with Russia that hacked the Amercian election.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/884016887692234753

Mr Person said:
I'll ignore the derp, blah blah, derp routine, since I'd like to point out that the GOP controls the branches and its thin-skinned cheerleader cannot manage to do anything but say mean words at them. Yet you're complaining about "liberals" not "concentrating on constructive policy".


Shouldn't the GOP and conservatives be focusing on policy? They're the ones who have power, after all. Yet all they seem to manage is drafting ACA "replacements" that are so crappy that they don't want to vote for their own ideas.
Click to expand...

Also if Donald Trump truly want to focusing on policy and truly are innocent why did he not have his staff make public all the meeting and connection to Russia before his inauguration? Instead having the media discovering more and more new information about meetings and connections that been hiding from the public that takes all the focus of the political debate. That did Trump really think he could keep all this stuff from being discovered and why did he and his staff do it if they truly are innocent?

Also it's not only about if Trump and his staff did something illegal it is also about them proving that they have the competence and morale standard to run the country. There it's now clear that they lack atleast some of those three criterias.
 
Conaeolos said:
Good then you’ll have a discussion about it?


Stop your confusing a positive and negative claim.
The popular Trump-Russia collusion allegations this meeting is proof.
Showing the lawyer involved does not appear to meeting that narrative is a frame on refuting that positive claim.

Hyperbole meet hyperbole.

They are mocking your story showing it does not follow your conclusion not that Democrats tricked Trump.


Do you know how it looks when a satire show doesn’t see sarcasm? This is called begging the question. It is used to mock a triggered person/mob.


Why did a meeting under the precept of evaluating opposition research include multiple members of the campaign staff? Umm…to evaluate the alleged materials.


Yes no one is disputing those are facts. The conclusion that proves collusion does however not follow those facts. I admit it rises questions which must be answered in regard to allegations of collusion but that does not collusion of itself make.

So as to the question of why one might sit on information about these emails/meeting…the answer is to build such hysteria and a lack of need for evidence as to match a perfectly innocent facts with a horribly slanderous narrative.


You’ll see many answers to this question based on people subjective options on Russia. Regardless, the answer is no unless you were planning trying to cover collusion; highly suspicious of Russia (which some are and so are not); in the habit of reporting your meetings and feel this was abnormal meeting.

So though I acknowledge this is an interoperable fact it is a rather neutral one.

Nothing. Have you read the Podesta e-mails? Full of this neutral interpretable campaign dealings that raise questions if your suspicious of this or that.

So please, It now an open challenge. I don’t think your stupid. I think your wrong. we know the same facts we have vasty different conclusions. Make your case have a civil discussion about it?
Click to expand...

One defense is that nothing happened at the meeting. That like Donald Trump Jr claimed that the meeting was a total failure. That leads to a lot of questions.
For example, look at this video their Trump and his staff claims there are no connection between Trump, his staff and his campaign and Russia.




While at the same Donald Jr, Kushner and Manafort know that it existed e-mail evidence of them planning to meet a representative of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary Clinton. That if nothing truly happened during that meeting why not straight away disclose it? Because how can you now trust them that nothing happened during that meeting or that they had not other meeting with Russial officials, then Donald Jr disclose the meeting a year later and only because it got leaked to the media?

Also, could they not realize the simple fact that it would look bad and really could hurt the campaign if it was leaked before the election?

Also, it is bad having Trump and his people time after time denying any connection to Russia government. While Donald ‘s son has no problem meeting representative of Russia to get dirt of Hillary Clinton. That no matter how you spin it you can’t deny that Donald Trump Jr response to the offer was yes, I love it.

Also, no political campaign would not send three of their top staff to a meeting just because someone claim they had dirt on their opponent. That to send three of the top staff to the meeting they need to really trust the people arranging the meeting. What does it say about their judgment if it all was a big scam?

Also, if it’s truly are reasonable, innocent and logical explanation for Donald Jr, Kushner and Manafort. Why do you have Sean Hannity and other asking the question if it was all set up by Democratic operatives? Because conspiracy theories like that will just make Donald Jr, Kushner and Manafort look guiltier to everyone that is not a diehard Trump supporter.

That yes you can argue it was just mocking but if you look at this forum you have members that seems to believe that it was not only mocking but a real question that diehard Trump support truly seems to believe that you should investigate if Democratic operative tricked Donald Trump Jr into the meeting.
 
Last edited:
Bergslagstroll said:
Also if Donald Trump truly want to focusing on policy and truly are innocent why did he not have his staff make public all the meeting and connection to Russia before his inauguration?
Click to expand...
Because that has no precedence or forseeable reason to be done.

Instead having the media discovering more and more new information about meetings and connections that been hiding from the public that takes all the focus of the political debate.
Click to expand...
Media choice of narrative away from facts and policy is now on trump? no - that's on them.

The media discovering what I might add are ridiculously weak links to Russia. You act like Trump flew exclusively in Russian planes with russian advisors or spent a lot of time in Russia or I don’t know had a foundation who primary donors were foreign governments…nope. His advisor saw a Russian dancer once. They were even at the same table as the ambassador to Russia you know.

Trump is a billionaire international businessman with some of his team from the respected political establishment circles. Russia is a country of 144 million people operating business and political actives all around the world and is included in those political & business circles. Sometime that means you have casual interactions…so no, not every link is a damning link.

Other then your narrative what proves your link? One email comment of an obscure British publicist of a obscure eastern singer? Or what that hard-hitting tabloid-esk dossier by Christopher Steele an old spy with old Russian connections being paid with no incentive at all to play loose&fast with the truth? No it was that Flynn connection who took a modest fee to speak at an RT gala where they happened to sit this speaker with other prominent RT guests like the Russian abassador?

Yeah. Okay.

That did Trump really think he could keep all this stuff from being discovered and why did he and his staff do it if they truly are innocent?
Click to expand...
What in particular stuff do you claim trump was/is scared of getting out?

Also it's not only about if Trump and his staff did something illegal it is also about them proving that they have the competence and morale standard to run the country. There it's now clear that they lack atleast some of those three criterias.
Click to expand...
Yes taking it to the face and rolling their eyes at a political witch hunt totally makes people lose faith even though they never have before unless previously biased. No in fact it demonstrates they can hold their minds together in the whirlwind of emotional hysteria...

Question of competence and morale standard to run the country aplenty but not about Trump and team.
 
katzgar said:
Trump is embarrassing that's for sure.

You got to wonder why all of the countries Trump has criticised over the last month's Russia is the one country that he's never criticized. Why is that?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen him criticizing any country, he just ask them to step up and meet their obligations, that they had agreed to, do you want to keep paying their way, it's your tax dollars?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bergslagstroll said:
One defense is that nothing happened at the meeting. That like Donald Trump Jr claimed that the meeting was a total failure. That leads to a lot of questions.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree the innocent does invoke questions in light of the allegation.

For example, look at this video their Trump and his staff claims there are no connection between Trump, his staff and his campaign and Russia.
Click to expand...
Sorry raising questions and showing a casual connections does not indicate in any way a link. So you must expand.

While at the same Donald Jr, Kushner and Manafort know that it existed e-mail evidence of them planning to meet a representative of the Russian government to get dirt on Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...
You assume they remember an email comment? The claim was not they never interacted with a Russian. It was there was no ties to Russia. We do agree there is a difference right?

That if nothing truly happened during that meeting why not straight away disclose it?
Click to expand...
Disclose what? A nothing meeting that can lead to questions in light of a later claim of collusion? Why would it ring red flags? The email comment? What a minor detail easily explainawayable...[as part of a larger case, this could show somthing, so make that case]

Because how can you now trust them that nothing happened during that meeting or that they had not other meeting with Russial officials, then Donald Jr disclose the meeting a year later and only because it got leaked to the media?
Click to expand...
Trust that is 100% the truth? No, that is juvile and ridiculous.

Give the benefit of the doubt still, most certainly. Trust a statement which hasn’t changed in light of new evidence beyond accusations, slander and questions ~ yes.

Also, could they not realize the simple fact that it would look bad and really could hurt the campaign if it was leaked before the election?
Click to expand...
Podesda emails contained many of the same question raising exchanges. The impacts were minor.

Also, it is bad having Trump and his people time after time denying any connection to Russia government.
Click to expand...
Did they do it unproked? From my point of view they deny it cause baseless claims about it keep being brought out.

While Donald ‘s son has no problem meeting representative of Russia to get dirt of Hillary Clinton. That no matter how you spin it you can’t deny that Donald Trump Jr response to the offer was yes, I love it.
Click to expand...
Do not deny this in the slightest. Raises question - yes. Criminal or unusual in itself - not even in the crazy speculative scenarios.

Also, no political campaign would not send three of their top staff to a meeting just because someone claim they had dirt on their opponent.
Click to expand...
Based on? Generally to verify and vouch for each other yes you would.

That to send three of the top staff to the meeting they need to really trust the people arranging the meeting. What does it say about their judgment if it all was a big scam?
Click to expand...
Common. If they prioritized it I’d agree. Also, you do know russia-clinton link accusations are not unheard of right?

Also, if it’s truly are reasonable, innocent and logical explanation for Donald Jr, Kushner and Manafort. Why do you have Sean Hannity and other asking the question if it was all set up by Democratic operatives?
Click to expand...
This witch hunt is getting insane…there are more connections between opponents and the lawyers then trump team.

Because conspiracy theories like that will just make Donald Jr, Kushner and Manafort look guiltier to everyone that is not a diehard Trump supporter.
Click to expand...
Oh, you think conspiracy theories are rare in meda?

That yes you can argue it was just mocking but if you look at this forum you have members that seems to believe that it was not only mocking but a real question that diehard Trump support truly seems to believe that you should investigate if Democratic operative tricked Donald Trump Jr into the meeting.
Click to expand...
Yes, so? If we entertian Russia-Trump conspiracy ~ why not? Chances it would find a case sub 1%.
 
Last edited:
Conaeolos said:
I actually think it a positive sign some disentors are willing to stop a bad policy from their own party and put personal opinion to the test. The thing you refer to in the positive here appear to me as groupthink and it kills productivity and lead to awful policy. Do I need to argue that is true?







Okay. How are all those statements not just a politics of fear?
Click to expand...
The group think on Repeal the Nothing is simply not workable. It won't happen.
 
Conaeolos said:
I actually think it a positive sign some disentors are willing to stop a bad policy from their own party and put personal opinion to the test. The thing you refer to in the positive here appear to me as groupthink and it kills productivity and lead to awful policy. Do I need to argue that is true?







Okay. How are all those statements not just a politics of fear?
Click to expand...

Because recognizing reality has nothing to do with "fear".
 
JamesBY said:
The group think on Repeal the Nothing is simply not workable. It won't happen.
Click to expand...
No, I am saying if the all got abord despite their own assessments. it would be group think. Would that not be a worse sign?
 
humbolt said:
I think Hillary blew the election herself. Had she not taken off weeks at a time and had Podesta not been a complete dunce, she might have won.



We have troops stationed there.



Assange maintains that Russia was not the source of his information. I don't know what's true in that regard, but you don't either. If you did, you'd be the most popular guy at the DNC these days.



I agree that Trump is sometimes a loose cannon in this regard. Pay more attention to what he does, and less attention to what he says. Thankfully, we have Mattis and others to keep him in line with the hard realities of these things.
Click to expand...

Had the Russians not illegally obtained that information, Podesta's dunce status would not have been as important as it was.

We had troops stationed in South Vietnam up until the end as well. That didn't stop the bug out.

Assange has an agenda, and every reason to lie when it comes to this matter. I trust somebody who hid in an embassy to avoid the consequences of a completely unrelated crime about as far as I could throw an Abrams tank.

Mattis is a very good choice, and unlike the rest of Trump's cabinet he refrained from kissing the Donald's ass during that debacle of a cabinet meeting.

Unfortunately, there's no guarantee Trump will listen to him, and we've already seen a tendency by the Donald to try and get rid of people who don't tell him what he wants to hear.
 
joG said:
What is difficult is the hot air the liberals are blowing instead of concentrating on constructive policy. But one can understand it. They hope enough fabricated muck will reach the emotions of their onetime followers to motivate them to remember to vote next time. Of course, that's not realistic as the Democrats are now the party of the slick investment bankers and cool internet types than the masses, whom they have nothing to offer.
Click to expand...

It's actually very easy to defend the indefensible: Just do what the left does and simply ignore the indefensible.
 
Conversely, had Podests not been a dunce, the Russians would never have obtained the information.

Respectfully, Vietnam isn't comparable to the Baltic states.

I don't trust Assange either. I don't trust many as a rule. That doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't been truthful regarding his sources.

Yeah. I like Mattis too.

I didn't mind seeing Flynn tossed. There are a few others I'm not wild about, but generally I think Trump has a pretty good cabinet, and at least some of them have demonstrated an ability to keep Trump on the rails.
 
Captain Adverse said:
There is no such thing as "the indefensible," at least not in the United States...a supposedly free nation with a code of laws designed to protect the individual from abuses by the majority.

Let me repost my position again:



As an ex-Public Defender, I was tasked every day with defending the "indefensible" because that is the bulwark of a free society; every person has a right to a good defense...regardless of the allegations or their station in life. :yes:
Click to expand...

Hmm... I missed where anyone in this thread said that DJT Jr. should be denied competent representation in criminal court.
Does your background as a public defender allow you to quote any poster who said differently?
 
humbolt said:
Maybe it's because Trump blew up 20 Russian supplied jet fighters in the missile attack on Syria. Maybe there's a message in there somewhere.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me more like Trump was just providing Russia an opportunity for more war profiteering.
You don't think that Russia gave those planes to Syria for free, do you?
 
Conaeolos said:
No, I am saying if the all got abord despite their own assessments. it would be group think. Would that not be a worse sign?
Click to expand...
Be more clear. Those who follow group consensus such as Mormon affirmation by common consent or the requirement of Marxist mass approval would disagree with you.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Hmm... I missed where anyone in this thread said that DJT Jr. should be denied competent representation in criminal court.
Does your background as a public defender allow you to quote any poster who said differently?
Click to expand...
No one has said that DJT Jr. should not have competent counsel to defend him against charges that he engaged in the indefensible.
 
RickJames3000 said:
Sounds to me more like Trump was just providing Russia an opportunity for more war profiteering.
You don't think that Russia gave those planes to Syria for free, do you?
Click to expand...

You're supporting the notion that if the US destroyed all of Syria's air force, Putin would benefit. That's if I take your proposition above to it's logical conclusion. Is the RickJames4000 an improved model?
 
JamesBY said:
won't play games with you
Click to expand...
Okay but no game here.

You said:
JamesBY said:
The group think on Repeal the Nothing is simply not workable. It won't happen.
Click to expand...

to me saying
Conaeolos said:
I actually think it a positive sign some dissenters are willing to stop a bad policy from their own party and put personal opinion to the test. The thing you refer to in the positive here appears to me as groupthink and it kills productivity and lead to awful policy. Do I need to argue that is true?
Click to expand...
which was a reply to
Mr Person said:
Shouldn't the GOP and conservatives be focusing on policy? They're the ones who have power, after all. Yet all they seem to manage is drafting ACA "replacements" that are so crappy that they don't want to vote for their own ideas.
Click to expand...

In other words: I am implying Mr Person’s ideal standard is advocating groupthink and I am glad the gop resists. Does he actually think groupthink is better? Do we actually need to argue that now and days?

of which, you added
JamesBY said:
Those who follow group consensus such as Mormon affirmation by common consent or the requirement of Marxist mass approval would disagree with you.
Click to expand...

Which seem to imply you think groupthink is bad. So I was confused.
 
humbolt said:
You're supporting the notion that if the US destroyed all of Syria's air force, Putin would benefit. That's if I take your proposition above to it's logical conclusion. Is the RickJames4000 an improved model?
Click to expand...

Apparently you're not very good at developing a logical argument.
If the US destroyed all of Syria's air force, the Assaad regime would crumble very quickly and Russia would have to find another buyer for their military aircraft.

But keep trying and you'll get the hang of it!
 
RickJames3000 said:
Apparently you're not very good at developing a logical argument.
If the US destroyed all of Syria's air force, the Assaad regime would crumble very quickly and Russia would have to find another buyer for their military aircraft.

But keep trying and you'll get the hang of it!
Click to expand...

Ah. I see you understand exactly how such things work. I just didn't understand exactly how Syria's loss of fighter aircraft accrued to Putin's benefit, because - Trump. I see it all now. Uh, thanks. 4000 coming out soon?
 
Conaeolos said:
Okay but no game here.

You said:


to me saying

which was a reply to


In other words: I am implying Mr Person’s ideal standard is advocating groupthink and I am glad the gop resists. Does he actually think groupthink is better? Do we actually need to argue that now and days?

of which, you added


Which seem to imply you think groupthink is bad. So I was confused.
Click to expand...
That is not a sound argument other than the far and alt right cannot force the rest of the GOP into a group think position. You need not worry about the Dems, and neither am I. We have a majority party that is function so very, very poorly.
 
humbolt said:
Ah. I see you understand exactly how such things work. I just didn't understand exactly how Syria's loss of fighter aircraft accrued to Putin's benefit, because - Trump. I see it all now. Uh, thanks. 4000 coming out soon?
Click to expand...

It's OK. Work on your articulation and you might be able to frame a coherent thought on the topic.
Not everyone is blessed with the natural ability to convey thought in written form.
 
JamesBY said:
That is not a sound argument other than the far and alt right cannot force the rest of the GOP into a group think position.
Click to expand...
James you need to review the rules of logic before you challage people arguments based on them. That's simply not consistant.

You need not worry about the Dems, and neither am I. We have a majority party that is function so very, very poorly
Click to expand...
Okay a fair counter point but you need a reasoning and the assumtion "the far and alt right cannot force the rest of the GOP into a group think position" is not logically consistant and does not count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom