• 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!

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

  • Total voters
    34
Slyfox696 said:
"Sustained. Counselor's entire opening statement, with the exception of "Thank you" will be stricken from the record."

You mean the completely fictional case? It turns out people cared more about facts than what they desperately wanted to believe and used facts to come to a truthful conclusion about the case.

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to acknowledge the fact Trump Jr. et al went to a meeting with the intent to collude with an "Russian government lawyer" who represented the Russian government which supported candidate Trump shortly before Russia began interfering in our election on behalf of Donald Trump?

Do you accept those things as facts?
Click to expand...
You are joking...right? You have watched leftists on this site for the last 10 months or so ****ting themselves over every new 'revelation' and engaging in a mindless circle cerk fantasy about arrests, frog walks, perp marches, and this time...boy...THIS time they have him....
and you want to ask ME that question?

:lamo

Ive said from the get go...the entire lot of them should be investigated fully...both sides...and let em all dangle. But I'm not the one that wakes up every morning rushing to my computer salivating at the hopes that someone has finally managed to fabricate some bull**** accusation that will actually stick. In a lot of ways, that case from "My Cousin Vinny" mirrors the Trump/Russia collusion witch hunt. There are a whole lot of people that have been convinced of his guilt regardless of the number of times democrats have been forced to admit that to date...nothing.
 
VanceMack said:
You are joking...right? You have watched leftists on this site for the last 10 months or so ****ting themselves over every new 'revelation' and engaging in a mindless circle cerk fantasy about arrests, frog walks, perp marches, and this time...boy...THIS time they have him....
and you want to ask ME that question?
Click to expand...
Hello again, Mr. Strawman, it's amazing how often I see you when someone doesn't want to answer the question.

I didn't ask you what "leftists" do or whether "they have him". I asked you a simple question, a question I shall ask you once more:

Are you willing to acknowledge the fact Trump Jr. et al went to a meeting with the intent to collude with an "Russian government lawyer" who represented the Russian government which supported candidate Trump shortly before Russia began interfering in our election on behalf of Donald Trump?

Do you accept those things as facts?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Hello again, Mr. Strawman, it's amazing how often I see you when someone doesn't want to answer the question.

I didn't ask you what "leftists" do or whether "they have him". I asked you a simple question, a question I shall ask you once more:

Are you willing to acknowledge the fact Trump Jr. et al went to a meeting with the intent to collude with an "Russian government lawyer" who represented the Russian government which supported candidate Trump shortly before Russia began interfering in our election on behalf of Donald Trump?

Do you accept those things as facts?
Click to expand...
No...you didnt ask that and thats the rub...isnt it? What you are doing is no different than the people that are ****ting themselves over what Don Jr may or may not have done while discounting and ignoring the DNC/Ukraine stuff...because THAT stuff doesnt matter. only the OTHER stuff.

You are the hypocrite you claim to oppose.
 
VanceMack said:
No...you didnt ask that
Click to expand...
Slyfox696 said:
"Sustained. Counselor's entire opening statement, with the exception of "Thank you" will be stricken from the record."

You mean the completely fictional case? It turns out people cared more about facts than what they desperately wanted to believe and used facts to come to a truthful conclusion about the case.

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to acknowledge the fact Trump Jr. et al went to a meeting with the intent to collude with an "Russian government lawyer" who represented the Russian government which supported candidate Trump shortly before Russia began interfering in our election on behalf of Donald Trump?

Do you accept those things as facts?
Click to expand...

and thats the rub...isnt it? What you are doing is no different than the people that are ****ting themselves over what Don Jr may or may not have done while discounting and ignoring the DNC/Ukraine stuff...because THAT stuff doesnt matter. only the OTHER stuff.

You are the hypocrite you claim to oppose.
Click to expand...
You still didn't answer the question. And there's no rub, it's a simple question you have twice now refused to answer. Let's try again:

Are you willing to acknowledge the fact Trump Jr. et al went to a meeting with the intent to collude with an "Russian government lawyer" who represented the Russian government which supported candidate Trump shortly before Russia began interfering in our election on behalf of Donald Trump?

Let's see if you can actually answer the question this time.
 
Last edited:
When there's smoke there's usually a bag of s*** on your door step. But in this case it's at 1600. Breathe deeply because you ain't seen or smelt nothing nyet.
 
You can't have smoke without a fire.
 
Slyfox696 said:
"Sustained. Counselor's entire opening statement, with the exception of "Thank you" will be stricken from the record."

You mean the completely fictional case? It turns out people cared more about facts than what they desperately wanted to believe and used facts to come to a truthful conclusion about the case.

Are you willing to do that? Are you willing to acknowledge the fact Trump Jr. et al went to a meeting with the intent to collude with an "Russian government lawyer" who represented the Russian government which supported candidate Trump shortly before Russia began interfering in our election on behalf of Donald Trump?

Do you accept those things as facts?
Click to expand...

I think you may be overstating your case. Collusion requires an arrangement or an agreement between two or more parties designed to achieve an improper purpose. When you can PROVE that the Trump team and the Russian team reached an AGREEMENT to achieve an improper purpose, please get back to us.
 
Slyfox696 said:
It is clear intent to collude when you go to a meeting with a foreign government attorney whose government who supports you and will provide "official documents" for the expressed intent of finding damaging info on your opponent. That is CLEAR intent to collude.
Says who? The person who intended to collude in the first place? So what you're saying is we are finding ourselves in the rare instance of where the accused claims he's not guilty, even after having not told the truth about the situation multiple times? Well, I'M convinced. :roll:

We'll just ignore all the evidence which comes after, specifically Russia's clear intent to sway the election in President Trump's favor. We have an accused who says he didn't do it. What more do we need?

To quote My Cousin Vinny: "Judge Chamerlain Haller: Once again, the communication process has broken down between us. It appears to me that you want to skip the arraignment process, go directly to trial, skip that, and get a dismissal. Well, I'm not about to revamp the entire judicial process just because you find yourself in the unique position of defending clients who say they didn't do it."

And yet, you continually ignore the real proof that arguably the three highest members of the Trump campaign went to a meeting with a "Russian government attorney" for the expressed intent to collude with a Russian government who supported Trump, a meeting which, on multiple occasions, they did not tell the truth about existing, shortly before the Russian government actively took measures to interfere in our election on behalf of President Trump. Instead of paying attention those indisputable facts, you cling to "clients who say they didn't do it".

I don't think you're telling the truth when you say you'll be the first to revise your opinion.
Click to expand...

Nooe. That is not collusion. It is checking out and in this case, it was only looking to see, if there was evidence for criminal behavior by a Presidential candidate. I would think that quite legal and legitimate. Were it to turn out that there had been such informatiin that the recipients did not publish or used as ammunition in a blackmailing, well then....
 
Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?
Click to expand...

sometimes.

in this particular case, everyone involved is lying about meetings with Russians and only telling the truth in pieces when new information surfaces. that is not how innocent people behave.
 
When we see smoke, we check to see if there is a fire.

To not investigate the Trump-Russian connection would be criminal negligence.
 
radcen said:
Is "Where there's smoke, there's fire" valid?

We see this concept... seldom outright named as such, but it's there... in judicial and criminal cases where people will believe a flurry of accusations over evidence to the contrary all the time. For example: In a jury murder trial, a known ciminal can have piles of evidence pointing toward innocence in this particular crime, yet some people will actually say things like, "Well I'm sure they're guilty of something somewhere else." to justify their guilty verdict/vote.

Another example: Even after-the-fact, a person who spent a decade in prison before being exonerated is still met with skepticism by large portions of the general public. Their exoneration is dismissed as, "They had to have been guilty, they just beat the system with cheap lawyer tricks and loopholes."

Both of those are variations of the "Where there's smoke, there's fire" mindset. Physical evidence is not as important as circumstantial evidence, or even desired belief.

Yet, as not uncommon as the examples above do happen, given time to hash out, "where there's smoke, there's fire" actually does end up being proven correct on a fairly regular basis.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Exception: When a MSM media distorts an issue. When objective news organizations are staffed with individuals with a covert agenda. Why do you think the CIA has hundereds, perhaps thousands, of agents in the USA MSM? Also, when large Corporate accounts use their power to have certain issues presented with a favorable bias toward their agenda, or cut their advertisement purchases. This describes the USA MSM accurately.
/
 
Quazimodo said:
I think you may be overstating your case. Collusion requires an arrangement or an agreement between two or more parties designed to achieve an improper purpose. When you can PROVE that the Trump team and the Russian team reached an AGREEMENT to achieve an improper purpose, please get back to us.
Click to expand...
Way to not read what I said. Try again.
joG said:
Nooe. That is not collusion.
Click to expand...
Why do these people seem to have so much difficulty reading?
Slyfox696 said:
It is clear intent to collude when you go to a meeting with a foreign government attorney whose government who supports you and will provide "official documents" for the expressed intent of finding damaging info on your opponent. That is CLEAR intent to collude.
Click to expand...

It is checking out and in this case, it was only looking to see, if there was evidence for criminal behavior by a Presidential candidate. I would think that quite legal and legitimate.
Click to expand...
That's a really stupid position to take. Donald Trump Jr. is not law enforcement and he knew exactly the type of meeting he was taking and worked for a week to make it happen.

The amount of denial right now is nearly overwhelming.

Were it to turn out that there had been such informatiin that the recipients did not publish or used as ammunition in a blackmailing, well then....
Click to expand...
You are missing the point, or (as I suspect) deliberately ignoring the point for partisan reasons. You said, "I would be the first to revise my opinion on real proof." and yet you're making excuses to explain away the real proof of the Trump Campaign INTENDING TO COLLUDE with the Russian government shortly before the Russian government interfered on Trump's behalf. Regardless of what may have happened at that meeting (and, again, I refuse to take the word of a person who has lied three or four times about the meeting), the fact is we have definitive and irrefutable evidence the Trump campaign WANTED to collude with the Russian government and actively took steps to make it happen.

Which is why when you say, "In the case of the allegations leveled against Trump it is becoming clear that the smoke is not evidence of a fire but of fuming liberals." it is an utterly stupid comment to make. When one is accused of something improper, it is stupid to say there's no evidence when we have an admission of intent of something improper.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Way to not read what I said. Try again.
Why do these people seem to have so much difficulty reading?


That's a really stupid position to take. Donald Trump Jr. is not law enforcement and he knew exactly the type of meeting he was taking and worked for a week to make it happen.

The amount of denial right now is nearly overwhelming.

You are missing the point, or (as I suspect) deliberately ignoring the point for partisan reasons. You said, "I would be the first to revise my opinion on real proof." and yet you're making excuses to explain away the real proof of the Trump Campaign INTENDING TO COLLUDE with the Russian government shortly before the Russian government interfered on Trump's behalf. Regardless of what may have happened at that meeting (and, again, I refuse to take the word of a person who has lied three or four times about the meeting), the fact is we have definitive and irrefutable evidence the Trump campaign WANTED to collude with the Russian government and actively took steps to make it happen.

Which is why when you say, "In the case of the allegations leveled against Trump it is becoming clear that the smoke is not evidence of a fire but of fuming liberals." it is an utterly stupid comment to make. When one is accused of something improper, it is stupid to say there's no evidence when we have an admission of intent of something improper.
Click to expand...

Other than attempting to lead the witness, you didn't really say anything.

So, when YOU can prove that the Trump team and the Russian Team reached an agreement to achieve an improper purpose, let us know. And while you're at it, take your legal expertise and prove intent to collude. That should be easy. Thank you.
 
Quazimodo said:
Other than attempting to lead the witness, you didn't really say anything.
Click to expand...
Then you either didn't read it or are dishonestly ignoring it. Either way, I'm not going to waste time with you.

And while you're at it, take your legal expertise and prove intent to collude. That should be easy. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I don't have to prove something Trump and Trump Jr. have already admitted to. That's stupid. Waste someone else's time.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Way to not read what I said. Try again.
Why do these people seem to have so much difficulty reading?


That's a really stupid position to take. Donald Trump Jr. is not law enforcement and he knew exactly the type of meeting he was taking and worked for a week to make it happen.

The amount of denial right now is nearly overwhelming.

You are missing the point, or (as I suspect) deliberately ignoring the point for partisan reasons. You said, "I would be the first to revise my opinion on real proof." and yet you're making excuses to explain away the real proof of the Trump Campaign INTENDING TO COLLUDE with the Russian government shortly before the Russian government interfered on Trump's behalf. Regardless of what may have happened at that meeting (and, again, I refuse to take the word of a person who has lied three or four times about the meeting), the fact is we have definitive and irrefutable evidence the Trump campaign WANTED to collude with the Russian government and actively took steps to make it happen.

Which is why when you say, "In the case of the allegations leveled against Trump it is becoming clear that the smoke is not evidence of a fire but of fuming liberals." it is an utterly stupid comment to make. When one is accused of something improper, it is stupid to say there's no evidence when we have an admission of intent of something improper.
Click to expand...

Read the mails. Read the statements. Read secondary literature on the situation. Only under overruling bias can one believe it is collusion.
That does not mean that new evidence might not turn that around, but as it is, it seems only slander and propaganda of so often attempted kind.
Not to say that young Trump acted smartly.
 
joG said:
Read the mails. Read the statements. Read secondary literature on the situation. Only under overruling bias can one believe it is collusion.
Click to expand...
Read my post or stop posting lies. Whichever problem you're having, fix it. Either you're not reading what I wrote or you're posting lies about what I said. Do the honest thing and respond to what I say, not your lazy strawman arguments.

The amount of lying and dishonesty from Trump supporters right now is fascinating.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Read my post or stop posting lies. Whichever problem you're having, fix it. Either you're not reading what I wrote or you're posting lies about what I said. Do the honest thing and respond to what I say, not your lazy strawman arguments.

The amount of lying and dishonesty from Trump supporters right now is fascinating.
Click to expand...

The thing is that you didn't convince me even though I dislike Trump as President.
 
joG said:
The thing is that you didn't convince me even though I dislike Trump as President.
Click to expand...
Convince you of what? I'm VERY interested if you even understood the point i was making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom