• 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!

Clinton/Biden/Trump

NeverTrump said:
who specifically and what problems do you have with their reporting?
Click to expand...
I love how you try to twist my question into a question of your own while avoiding my question to you. I asked you if you denied that the people who put this story out have credability issues. Do you deny that articles that come from CNN, NYTs, WaPo have turned out to be false on multiple ocassions? Why should anyone trust them at their word when its been shown to unreliable. So far the only evidence they have produced is what nameless people have told them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Mach said:
Yes, it's madness. If you take that nonsense, and apply it to any other scenario in reality, it also looks 100% absurd and stupid.

A doctor hears you complain about symptoms...has no idea what is really the cause, and she says:

"I can't speculate about your issue because this Trump nutter thinks speculation is all I have and is worthless!!"
"This other Trump supporter said its meaningless to discuss a disease I have not seen first-hand!"

Whatever am I to do, how do I diagnose and treat you, if I cannot investigate what's wrong with you (if anything)? I'm so stupid to listen to stupid trump supporter faux-logic!

We saw this during Russia investigation too..when Russians were evidenced to have helped Trump win the election, and Trump knew about it and welcomed it, and advertised 100+ time the stole DNC documents, but not directly in a quid pro quo...remember that?
*what proof do you have he committed a crime!?!?!*
*That's what the MOTHER ****ING INVESTIGATION IS FOR YOU DUMB MOTHER ****ERS*.

Maybe without the cursing, but it's so stupid it hurts.
Click to expand...

Ah I see that we are now at the stage of at least there is a claim, but that it could be nothing because of this point I have taken out of context and so desperately wanna believe. See post #50. I already jumped ahead here.
 
trouble13 said:
I love how you try to twist my question into a question of your own while avoiding my question to you. I asked you if you denied that the people who put this story out have credability issues. Do you deny that articles that come from CNN, NYTs, WaPo have turned out to be false on multiple ocassions? Why should anyone trust them at their word when its been shown to unreliable. So far the only evidence they have produced is what nameless people have told them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

who specifically and what problems do you have with their reporting? You said you had problems with people and their reporting. I'd like to know which people and what stories. Not blanket generalizations and how dare yous.
 
Mach said:
*what proof do you have he committed a crime!?!?!*
*That's what the MOTHER ****ING INVESTIGATION IS FOR YOU DUMB MOTHER ****ERS*.

Maybe without the cursing, but it's so stupid it hurts.
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah that was very frustrating. They don't seem to understand what an investigation is. You don't need proof that someone has done something wrong to begin an investigation. The purpose of an investigation is to gather proof of guilt or innocence. You only need suspicion to investigate.
 
trouble13 said:
I love how you try to twist my question into a question of your own while avoiding my question to you. I asked you if you denied that the people who put this story out have credability issues. Do you deny that articles that come from CNN, NYTs, WaPo have turned out to be false on multiple ocassions? Why should anyone trust them at their word when its been shown to unreliable. So far the only evidence they have produced is what nameless people have told them.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
A Republican, Trump appointed Inspector General Michael Atkinson raised the alarm to congress. Why are you attacking CNN and acting like this isn't real?
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
LOL, yeah that was very frustrating. They don't seem to understand what an investigation is. You don't need proof that someone has done something wrong to begin an investigation. The purpose of an investigation is to gather proof of guilt or innocence. You only need suspicion to investigate.
Click to expand...
Oh they understand.
 
Mach said:
A Republican, Trump appointed Inspector General Michael Atkinson raised the alarm to congress. Why are you attacking CNN and acting like this isn't real?
Click to expand...

Is this the same IG that they are waiting to arrest Comey and Clinton? Or is that the mystical unicorn one?
 
Mach said:
A Republican, Trump appointed Inspector General Michael Atkinson raised the alarm to congress. Why are you attacking CNN and acting like this isn't real?
Click to expand...
I dont didpute that. It is sn actusl fact. The speculation attached to it relies on the credability of the people reporting it and they have credability issues. Trump supporters are rushing to his defense and anti-trumpers already have him concocted of something when neither side has sny idea what the report contains.

Ftr if schiff is legally entitled to see the report, he should be given access to it, if not then needs to suck it up. The law is the law and both sides need to adhere to it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
I disagree with you but I thought you were a rational person. You're attacking the motives of the accusers instead of the substance of the accusation. That's a type of ad hominem argument. It's invalid and irrelevant.

It's true of every politician around the world that opponents are "out to get him (or her)." But that fact alone doesn't discredit their allegations. Sometimes the politician is indeed corrupt. You can be a corrupt politician AND the opposition can be out to get you. Nixon is an example of this.



You're using a straw man strategy here. You're perfectly right that a president has every right to demand some foreign country investigate corruption. But you're omitting some facts and thus creating a straw man. Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political opponent's son.

You can't deny that you intentionally reworded the allegation to make it sound innocuous. Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate corruption vs Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate his political opponent's son.

Let's summarize your arguments:

1. An ad hominem attack on the motives of the accusers

2. A straw man mischaracterization of the allegation
Click to expand...

1. In both your quotes I was summarizing what the commentator in the video stated, since experience has taught me many people won't view the video and instead demand a "summary."

2. I merely said that I agree with his characterization of how the MSM has been reporting things. This position should not surprise you, as it is one I have discussed many times since the 2016 election.

3. In any case, I was providing a video which addressed a counter-analysis of the issue raised in the OP for each person to assess for themselves.

This was neither an "ad hominin," nor a "straw man." It was simply providing a video I felt offered counterpoints to some of the points made in the OP.

Responding with an ad hominin then alleging an opponent was engaging in one? Naughty-naughty. :naughty

Try again. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
trouble13 said:
I love how you try to twist my question into a question of your own while avoiding my question to you. I asked you if you denied that the people who put this story out have credability issues. Do you deny that articles that come from CNN, NYTs, WaPo have turned out to be false on multiple ocassions? Why should anyone trust them at their word when its been shown to unreliable. So far the only evidence they have produced is what nameless people have told them.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually the news organizations you mention are statistically far more credible than the President or his minions have been. Perhaps you should not be talking about false statements and trust when you are defending a man who has lied 1000's of times while in office. Besides the fact that there would be no need for speculation if Trump had not ordered a cover-up of the complaint and followed the law.
 
Captain Adverse said:
1. In both your quotes I was summarizing what the commentator in the video stated, since experience has taught me many people won't view the video and instead demand a "summary."

2. I merely said that I agree with his characterization of how the MSM has been reporting things. This position should not surprise you, as it is one I have discussed many times since the 2016 election.

3. In any case, I was providing a video which addressed a counter-analysis of the issue raised in the OP for each person to assess for themselves.

This was neither an "ad hominin," nor a "straw man." It was simply providing a video I felt offered counterpoints to some of the points made in the OP.

Responding with an ad hominin then alleging an opponent was engaging in one? Naughty-naughty. :naughty

Try again. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

So you agree that a President using his office and the powers of the Presidency for his own gain is abuse of power and corrupt? That is what this is all about.
 
iguanaman said:
So you agree that a President using his office and the powers of the Presidency for his own gain is abuse of power and corrupt? That is what this is all about.
Click to expand...

Oh, a poison pill statement couched in the form of a question? :think:

1. No one has proven this, or any other "act," has in fact been an "abuse of power,"

2. Nor has anyone proven this action taken by the President was "corrupt."

All we have heard is opinion and accusation, something the video I provided touched upon.

THAT is "what this is all about." Try again. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
You claim you don't know the details.
You then immediately claim to know the details make it inapplicable to the whistle-blower law.

Why can you not make a reasonable claim?
Click to expand...
I told you what the law says.
I knew it didn't apply days ago and said so at the time when I saw what the law said.
The office of the DNI said it didn't apply and why.
Now that you know what the law says, explain what you learned ... why doesn't it apply to a POTUS?
 
iguanaman said:
Actually the news organizations you mention are statistically far more credible than the President or his minions have been. Perhaps you should not be talking about false statements and trust when you are defending a man who has lied 1000's of times while in office. Besides the fact that there would be no need for speculation if Trump had not ordered a cover-up of the complaint and followed the law.
Click to expand...
But Truuuump! Got it!
I never said i believed or did not believe the story. My point is the people reporting this are relying on cedability that they sabotaged long ago. That does not mean i trust Trump. It means i dont trust them and i have good reason not to. Their motives have been transparent since Trump was elected and their accuracy has been subpar.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
iguanaman said:
So Congress decided that no whistle blower protection is needed in matters of national security? That seems strange don't you think? Why did the IG state that it was something that needed to be sent to Congress? It appears to me that the DOJ or the Whitehouse have no jurisdiction in the complaint yet Whitehouse and DOJ lawyers are involved.
Click to expand...

I told you what the law says.
I knew it didn't apply days ago and said so at the time when I saw what the law said.
The office of the DNI said it didn't apply and why.
Now that you know what the law says, explain what you learned ... why doesn't it apply to a POTUS?
 
trouble13 said:
But Truuuump! Got it!
I never said i believed or did not believe the story. My point is the people reporting this are relying on cedability that they sabotaged long ago. That does not mean i trust Trump. It means i dont trust them and i have good reason not to. Their motives have been transparent since Trump was elected and their accuracy has been subpar.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What about Trump's motive for lying repeatedly even when he is corrected by the media. At least the media admits and corrects their mistakes. Why don't you ask the same of Trump? Where is the evidence that the media is not just reporting the news as they see it? Do you think they should just ignore news that is negative for Trump?

MW-FC101_news_20161215131112_NS.jpg

How does your favorite news source rate on the ‘truthiness’ scale? Consult this chart - MarketWatch
 
Last edited:
NeverTrump said:
Uh that's what the whistle-blower said it was. If you want to break this apart piece by piece, you will sadly find yourself in a corner with no way out, just like every other despicable things you have defended alt-right figures doing. Do you really wanna go there? Again? Do you like being humiliated on message boards?

You can choose to not believe the US intelligence community, like our President, but that isn't very American.
Click to expand...

And what were those serious problems involving intelligence activities?
 
iguanaman said:
What about Trump's motive for lying repeatedly even when he is corrected by the media. At least the media admits and corrects their mistakes. Why don't you ask the same of Trump? Where is the evidence that the media is not just reporting the news as they see it? Do you think they should just ignore news that is negative for Trump?
Click to expand...
I call trump out on his lies as well as the medias. I dont take trumps word for something without supporting evidence anymore than i do the medias.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Captain Adverse said:
Oh, a poison pill statement couched in the form of a question? :think:

1. No one has proven this, or any other "act" has in fact been an "abuse of power,"

2. Nor has anyone proven this action taken by the President was "corrupt."

All we have heard is opinion and accusation, something the video I provided touched upon.

THAT is "what this is all about." Try again. :coffeepap:
Click to expand...

So you deny the veracity of the entire story because Trump has suppressed the complaint? We have a new form of the law now apparently. Innocent as long as I can suppress the evidence against me. Does that sound right to you?
 
trouble13 said:
I call trump out on his lies as well as the medias. I dont take trumps word for something without supporting evidence anymore than i do the medias.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

LOL That means you cannot believe one word he says then. Do you think the media would be more credible to you if they ignored stories that were negative for Trump? It appears that you don't like negative stories about him whether they are fact or not.
 
iguanaman said:
LOL That means you cannot believe one word he says then. Do you think the media would be more credible to you if they ignored stories that were negative for Trump? It appears that you don't like negative stories about him whether they are fact or not.
Click to expand...
Im not emotionally invested either way.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
bubbabgone said:
I told you what the law says. I knew it didn't apply days ago and said so at the time when I saw what the law said. The office of the DNI said it didn't apply and why. Now that you know what the law says, explain what you learned ... why doesn't it apply to a POTUS?
Click to expand...
So you already made up your mind - without the details. But you're asking for the details before believing the opposition is correct in wanting to learn the details. Do you really think in this crazy way or are you trolling me?
 
bubbabgone said:
And what were those serious problems involving intelligence activities?
Click to expand...

What do we know? Well we know that:

1. Trump sent his "personal attorney" with state dept funding to dig up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for military funding which is pretty much what you all accused Clinton/Biden of doing.

2. We know that dumbass Rudy corroborated the story live on CNN.

3. Trump thinks it is illegal if a politician tried to use Ukraine (or other countries) to investigate a political rival and has accused Hillary Clinton of doing this 100+ times.

4. Thereby for years you and other Trump supporters have been posting that the collusion was done by Democrats and Clinton/intelligence officers should go to prison for doing the stuff you claim is no big deal now.

5. Accepting dirt on your opponents from a foreign power is considered treason.

6. Trump threatened to withdraw aid (and DID!) If they didn't follow through with what he demanded but all I'm reading is why is it concerning?

7. Why is Trump demanding other countries to interfere in our election?

8. We also know Trump said that he would accept foreign interference from other countries during the election

9 We know Trump asked Ukraine a total of eight times and that there is audio recorded evidence of the process.

10. We also know that Trump and Barr are responsible for shielding the attempt to make all of the details public

So yes, there are serious problems involving intelligence activities.
 
NeverTrump said:
So why are news organizations saying specific facts about said claims like the payment price and the number of times Trump asked Ukraine to look into Joe Biden?
Click to expand...

I guess you've noticed that those news organizations had to clarify their original story. No quid pro quo as far as they know. They didn't make that clear with the original claims. Typical liberal news, rush to print without any evidence and often with evidence contradicting what they printed. Hate and liberalism just can't do things right it seems.
 
Integrityrespec said:
I guess you've noticed that those news organizations had to clarify their original story. No quid pro quo as far as they know. They didn't make that clear with the original claims. Typical liberal news, rush to print without any evidence and often with evidence contradicting what they printed. Hate and liberalism just can't do things right it seems.
Click to expand...

And what of the conservative news that rush to praise Trump and spread outright lies and fabrication? Also is your defense really that "It sure is a good thing that the President of Ukraine isn't more corrupt than Trump."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom