• 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!

Muller investigation vs. Ken Starr investigation

MovingPictures said:
The Uranium One propaganda has been debunked to kingdom come, sorry if you haven't been listening.
Click to expand...

LOL!! Debunked?? Not hardly. Hell, it hasn't REALLY been looked at except by those who don't want a real investigation to be done.

And don't bother trotting out that Shep/Fox thing. I watched it. He left out so many issues, it's like he wasn't even talking about it. He just skimmed the surface.

A real investigation into that mess will put Obama administration people in fear of prison.
 
Mycroft said:
Not at all.

I don't need to see anything. I just want SOMEONE to look at the stuff and do something about it.
Click to expand...
That's how I feel about Trump's business network of potential conflicts of interests, and his extensive track record with criminal enterprises.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!! Debunked?? Not hardly. Hell, it hasn't REALLY been looked at except by those who don't want a real investigation to be done.

And don't bother trotting out that Shep/Fox thing. I watched it. He left out so many issues, it's like he wasn't even talking about it. He just skimmed the surface.

A real investigation into that mess will put Obama administration people in fear of prison.
Click to expand...
In your dreams.

He didn't just skim the surface, he completely debunked the whole lie the wingnuts have been trotting out for two years. There were no bribes, there was no quid pro quo, and there were no crimes.

Go ahead and do an investigation, I'd love to see the look on your face when nothing comes out of it. Then at the same time we can have Mueller look into Trump's business dealings with Russian mafia, and we'll see which one nets criminal charges.
 
MovingPictures said:
That's how I feel about Trump's business network of potential conflicts of interests, and his extensive track record with criminal enterprises.
Click to expand...

shrug...

Call for an investigation, then. But you'll have to convince someone that there is actually something there and not just some "suspicion".
 
Mycroft said:
shrug...

Call for an investigation, then. But you'll have to convince someone that there is actually something there and not just some "suspicion".
Click to expand...
Same goes for you.
 
MovingPictures said:
Same goes for you.
Click to expand...

Yes...that's why there are investigations into the Clinton Foundation and no investigations into Trump/Mafia. (except for that rabid guy in NY)
 
Mycroft said:
I really have to wonder is you are following this discussion.

YOU are the one who brought up the DNC emails...or have you forgotten this in one of your comments to me?



If you know about Uranium One...as you imply...then there is no reason to go over it again. Unless you have some dispute about that, of course. And, U1...among other issues and events...are exactly why the Clintons and the Podestas should be worried, so actually I DID answer your question.

Now...do you want to play around here...or move on? Your choice, but be aware...I'm done playing around. Get with it or get dismissed.
Click to expand...




Yes, I am following this discussion. Can you give me an example, maybe a quote, that makes you “…wonder is you are following this discussion.”?

I said nothing about Trump and the DNC. You just threw it out there. I don’t see any point in what you said or that its pertinent to this discussion. Are you able to focus on substance, or must you get your childish digs in like “following this discussion” and “have you forgotten?”.

I have refuted those who think Hillary was involved in the Uranium One deal before, along with all the trimmings. You said nothing specific in what you said about Pa-for-play. You could be more vague and general. It seems to me your trying to avoid being responsible for your own words because you’re not backing them up. No facts, no evidence.

You’re the one playing around. I’m not playing. This is not a game to me, though it can be fun. No specific answers. No facts presented. No evidence. No citation. If you’re not willing to do the research work and data mining necessary to back up what you say, you’re conceding any contention by default. The following is an excerpt from the link given further below:

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It is also called Hitchnes' Razor. The burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker and if he or she does not meet it then the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded claim.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. | CreateDebate

So, if you can’t back your own words, yeah, let’s move on.
 
bluesmoke said:
Yes, I am following this discussion. Can you give me an example, maybe a quote, that makes you “…wonder is you are following this discussion.”?

I said nothing about Trump and the DNC. You just threw it out there. I don’t see any point in what you said or that its pertinent to this discussion. Are you able to focus on substance, or must you get your childish digs in like “following this discussion” and “have you forgotten?”.

I have refuted those who think Hillary was involved in the Uranium One deal before, along with all the trimmings. You said nothing specific in what you said about Pa-for-play. You could be more vague and general. It seems to me your trying to avoid being responsible for your own words because you’re not backing them up. No facts, no evidence.

You’re the one playing around. I’m not playing. This is not a game to me, though it can be fun. No specific answers. No facts presented. No evidence. No citation. If you’re not willing to do the research work and data mining necessary to back up what you say, you’re conceding any contention by default. The following is an excerpt from the link given further below:

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It is also called Hitchnes' Razor. The burden of proof in a debate lies with the claim- maker and if he or she does not meet it then the opponent does not need to argue against the unfounded claim.

What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. | CreateDebate

So, if you can’t back your own words, yeah, let’s move on.
Click to expand...

LOL!!

Dude...I quoted you. Did you ignore that? Or are you blind as well as forgetful.

You know what...never mind. Don't answer because I don't care.

You are dismissed.
 
Mueller is following the evidence ocf crime. Starr spent 5 years failing to find any crime except a lie about a consensual BJ.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Mueller is following the evidence ocf crime. Starr spent 5 years failing to find any crime except a lie about a consensual BJ.
Click to expand...

Oh...is THAT all Starr found?

I thought he found proof of Clinton...the sitting President...committing perjury in a court of law.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

Dude...I quoted you. Did you ignore that? Or are you blind as well as forgetful.

You know what...never mind. Don't answer because I don't care. You are dismissed.
Click to expand...


Then do me a favor. Quote my question and the answer that satisfies same. All you do is say the question was already answered, but you don't say word-for-word what that answer was and the question to which it belongs. Otherwise, Hitchne's Razor applies and your argument falls flat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom