• 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!

GDP increases 4.1 percent Q2 2018

Born Free said:
How can I be upset that Hillary lost? Shake your head. This is about you having no credibility.
Click to expand...

I'll second that one. I am so pleased with the news today of the GDP growth as I was with the news of the very low unemployment which means more citizens are actually paying taxes.

I was also pleased with this push to train people in needed trades to fulfill the needed skills to allow manufacturers to be successful. It is also allowing folks who have made bad choices in the past to be considered for positions in the lower levels that were never considered before. Every person that can find employment is less of a burden on the state and federal governments. Having a second chance, an opportunity to provide for yourself is life changing. It's all very good.
 
jonny5 said:
Of course, and while i would prefer to get rid of them entirely at the federal level, something reasonable at the state or local level would be more tolerable. Each state or locale can come up with the best plan for their citizens. Single payer in vermont if they want. Privatization in Texas if they want.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting concept.

I don't know if this can be pulled-off at the state level though, since some states are small and we don't have borders between states, meaning people move freely across them. But in general, I have no problem with this concept if it can be made to work.
 
Trumps successful policies just amaze me.Thank you Mr. President
 
Born Free said:
I see you don't understand the true employment rate, under Obama he had the lowest labor participation rate under his watch and presided over the worst recovery in US History and borrowed 10 trillion in 8 yrs to even achieve that. Now go cheer for your Obama.
Click to expand...
The point is: You can't simply promote a multiplier or divisor like you did, without context. As you now see.
 
jonny5 said:
Of course, and while i would prefer to get rid of them entirely at the federal level, something reasonable at the state or local level would be more tolerable. Each state or locale can come up with the best plan for their citizens. Single payer in vermont if they want. Privatization in Texas if they want.
Click to expand...

The Trump administration declared this week it won't allow states to do state-level single payer. That leaves only one way to do it.

Verma will reject any single-payer state waivers
 
Born Free said:
I take from your statement, the paid for dossier by Hillary has been corroborated by the FBI to be true and accurate. And the FBI used this corroborated dossier to spy on the Trump campaign and brought charges against who?
Click to expand...

Wow, do you really live in such a binary world where either the Dossier is phony or it is 100% verified? I certainly don't live in that world, nor do I suspect most DP readers and posters live there either. What an ugly place.

Instead, most of us live in world where things are not black or white, but usually shades of grey. That does not prohibit you from concluding things are more white than black, but things are rarely pure. Things exist on gradients. Things can be more true than not.

Nothing in the Dossier has been dis-proven; much of it has been verified. Though the Dossier is not 100% verified, that does not make it phony, as you have suggested. It just means its a work-in-progress. Here is what is known from the Dossier.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-true-proven-929839

Clapper: 'More and more' of Steele dossier proving to be true | TheHill

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ue-mi6-putin-moscow-hotel-cohen-a8315046.html

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...r-isnt-fake-its-credible-and-globally-sourced

It appears to be more accurate than not.

Even Steele does not believe it is 100% true. He thinks more like 70-90

Book: Steele says 70-90 percent of his Trump-Russia dossier is accurate | TheHill

You can bet the family farm that Mueller has a member or two of his team "checking out" the dossier. If there are charges to be filed, if not charged, they will at least be included in his report.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
That is an interesting concept.

I don't know if this can be pulled-off at the state level though, since some states are small and we don't have borders between states, meaning people move freely across them. But in general, I have no problem with this concept if it can be made to work.
Click to expand...

Well that would be up to those states to figure it out. I imagine a state with 'free' health care would find a way to limit it to their own citizens, or quickly realize that such a program is doomed to fail.
 
upsideguy said:
Wow, do you really live in such a binary world where either the Dossier is phony or it is 100% verified? I certainly don't live in that world, nor do I suspect most DP readers and posters live there either. What an ugly place.

Instead, most of us live in world where things are not black or white, but usually shades of grey. That does not prohibit you from concluding things are more white than black, but things are rarely pure. Things exist on gradients. Things can be more true than not.

Nothing in the Dossier has been dis-proven; much of it has been verified. Though the Dossier is not 100% verified, that does not make it phony, as you have suggested. It just means its a work-in-progress. Here is what is known from the Dossier.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-russia-dossier-true-proven-929839

Clapper: 'More and more' of Steele dossier proving to be true | TheHill

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ue-mi6-putin-moscow-hotel-cohen-a8315046.html

https://www.thedenverchannel.com/ne...r-isnt-fake-its-credible-and-globally-sourced

It appears to be more accurate than not.

Even Steele does not believe it is 100% true. He thinks more like 70-90

Book: Steele says 70-90 percent of his Trump-Russia dossier is accurate | TheHill

You can bet the family farm that Mueller has a member or two of his team "checking out" the dossier. If there are charges to be filed, if not charged, they will at least be included in his report.
Click to expand...

It's Hillary's dossier and it's for the owner/author to prove its authenticity. Period. You can tell me something and it may be a lie or not but it's not for me to provide proof if it's true or not. You want me to believe you, provide the evidence, a real simple concept. Hillary produced a dossier against Trump where is her proof it's true. Further the FBI did not corroborate the dossier that was submitted to the FISA court, which they are required to do.

In bold you admit that it has not been corroborated and if it's not a true document it's phony as hell. What, is a person supposed to pick what they think is true or not. Is a FISA court supposed to think what to pick which is true or not. "It appears to be more accurate than not". Are you kidding me, what kind of Bull **** is that. The dossier is either true or not. What world do you live in, it's kinda true, we think it's more true than not, hell I don't know what is true or not, maybe it's not true at all, I think there is some truth to it.

This is not some school yard talk but a dossier paid for by Hillary against her opponent for the president of the US. And you say, geeeee it's kinda true, no that's not how it works. The real collusion with Russia is the involvement of Russian input into the dossier.

Ask yourself is this dossier true or not. A simple question or are you so naive and so biased you can't think straight, that this document can be true and false and should be used by the FBI to get a FISA warrant to spy on Hillary's opponent for the Presidency? Are you kidding me. You live on a different planet than I do. Yea send it over to the judge for a warrant, is it true, who cares. Really.
 
Born Free said:
It's Hillary's dossier and it's for the owner/author to prove its authenticity. Period. You can tell me something and it may be a lie or not but it's not for me to provide proof if it's true or not. You want me to believe you, provide the evidence, a real simple concept. Hillary produced a dossier against Trump where is her proof it's true. Further the FBI did not corroborate the dossier that was submitted to the FISA court, which they are required to do.

In bold you admit that it has not been corroborated and if it's not a true document it's phony as hell. What, is a person supposed to pick what they think is true or not. Is a FISA court supposed to think what to pick which is true or not. "It appears to be more accurate than not". Are you kidding me, what kind of Bull **** is that. The dossier is either true or not. What world do you live in, it's kinda true, we think it's more true than not, hell I don't know what is true or not, maybe it's not true at all, I think there is some truth to it.

This is not some school yard talk but a dossier paid for by Hillary against her opponent for the president of the US. And you say, geeeee it's kinda true, no that's not how it works. The real collusion with Russia is the involvement of Russian input into the dossier.

Ask yourself is this dossier true or not. A simple question or are you so naive and so biased you can't think straight, that this document can be true and false and should be used by the FBI to get a FISA warrant to spy on Hillary's opponent for the Presidency? Are you kidding me. You live on a different planet than I do. Yea send it over to the judge for a warrant, is it true, who cares. Really.
Click to expand...

Do you even understand what a dossier is? If you did, you would realize what non-responsive, waste of hyperspace your post is. I suggest you do a little research to better prepare you to post on this subject. Hint: Hillary has nothing to do with whether it is fully accurate, mostly accurate or not.

As per my original post, the options are not binary. The dossier is not false if its not totally true. Much of the dossier has been validated; none of the dossier has been found to be in error. Steele himself says its 70-90 accurate. Again, without an understanding of what a dossier actually is, that statement is lost on you.

Worry not, Mueller has the dossier. It is an excellent road map that surely has a couple of members of his team busy.
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Do you even understand what a dossier is? If you did, you would realize what non-responsive, waste of hyperspace your post is. I suggest you do a little research to better prepare you to post on this subject. Hint: Hillary has nothing to do with whether it is fully accurate, mostly accurate or not.

As per my original post, the options are not binary. The dossier is not false if its not totally true. Much of the dossier has been validated; none of the dossier has been found to be in error. Steele himself says its 70-90 accurate. Again, without an understanding of what a dossier actually is, that statement is lost on you.

Worry not, Mueller has the dossier. It is an excellent road map that surely has a couple of members of his team busy.
Click to expand...

You need to read an unbiased source and Steele is not an unbiased source on his own product, by definition.

Try this BBC article out for a look at what is and isn't truthful about the dossier:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39435786
 
Last edited:
upsideguy said:
Thanks. My previous posts on this thread included several articles on how much of the dossier had been verified.
Click to expand...

Newsweek---biased
Clapper---his own ass is on the line over it being true
Independent---investigates 3 claims, none of which it proves as true, its a wash to support your claims. Apparently you never read it.
Denver Channel---Carter Page met with Russian Oil officials and Russians targeted certain demographics, hardly indicates more of the dossier is true. Nor are either a strong indicator of Steele's investigative chops, neither issue was particularly clandestine.

Steele is not an unbiased judge of his own work. He is invested in it being true, much as Clapper is.
 
Born Free said:
It's Hillary's dossier and it's for the owner/author to prove its authenticity. Period. You can tell me something and it may be a lie or not but it's not for me to provide proof if it's true or not. You want me to believe you, provide the evidence, a real simple concept. Hillary produced a dossier against Trump where is her proof it's true. Further the FBI did not corroborate the dossier that was submitted to the FISA court, which they are required to do.

In bold you admit that it has not been corroborated and if it's not a true document it's phony as hell. What, is a person supposed to pick what they think is true or not. Is a FISA court supposed to think what to pick which is true or not. "It appears to be more accurate than not". Are you kidding me, what kind of Bull **** is that. The dossier is either true or not. What world do you live in, it's kinda true, we think it's more true than not, hell I don't know what is true or not, maybe it's not true at all, I think there is some truth to it.

This is not some school yard talk but a dossier paid for by Hillary against her opponent for the president of the US. And you say, geeeee it's kinda true, no that's not how it works. The real collusion with Russia is the involvement of Russian input into the dossier.

Ask yourself is this dossier true or not. A simple question or are you so naive and so biased you can't think straight, that this document can be true and false and should be used by the FBI to get a FISA warrant to spy on Hillary's opponent for the Presidency? Are you kidding me. You live on a different planet than I do. Yea send it over to the judge for a warrant, is it true, who cares. Really.
Click to expand...

Off topic. Take it elsewhere.
 
jonny5 said:
Stronger growth for the year and since the tax cuts passed 6 months ago, but we'll see if it lasts. Coupled with increased tax revenue, this should help reduce the amount of borrowing needed if congress and President could control there spending. Which of course they cant.



Imports dont seem to be slowing either. So, economy is maybe booming, and govt as usual is doing all it can to waste it.
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-1-trillion-this-year/?utm_term=.b12f6be323d7

U.S. set to borrow $1T, an 84% jump from 2017.

Not sure your conclusions are bearing out in reality.
 
Born Free said:
Your one of those that just can't get over Hillary lost, she lost don't you get it. She's not the president, Trump is.
Click to expand...

which I find interesting.. because whenever trump does something that hurts the economy, or bends over backwards discrediting our intelligence services,, or bending over more for putin...

The excuse that so called conservative republicans give me.... "well, yeah.. but what about Hillary Clinton".

She is not president.. nor is Obama. Its seems that the so called conservatives have forgotten that fact in their efforts to apologize for trump.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Newsweek---biased
Clapper---his own ass is on the line over it being true
Independent---investigates 3 claims, none of which it proves as true, its a wash to support your claims. Apparently you never read it.
Denver Channel---Carter Page met with Russian Oil officials and Russians targeted certain demographics, hardly indicates more of the dossier is true. Nor are either a strong indicator of Steele's investigative chops, neither issue was particularly clandestine.
Steele is not an unbiased judge of his own work. He is invested in it being true, much as Clapper is.
Click to expand...

At this point, anyone still defending Trump by attacking the Steele dossier is actively aiding and abetting Russian propagandists.
 
The Derp said:
At this point, anyone still defending Trump by attacking the Steele dossier is actively aiding and abetting Russian propagandists.
Click to expand...

I get all you have is bait, but try to comment on my post instead of just making retarded accusations.
 
jaeger19 said:
which I find interesting.. because whenever trump does something that hurts the economy, or bends over backwards discrediting our intelligence services,, or bending over more for putin...

The excuse that so called conservative republicans give me.... "well, yeah.. but what about Hillary Clinton".

She is not president.. nor is Obama. Its seems that the so called conservatives have forgotten that fact in their efforts to apologize for trump.
Click to expand...

I havent seen anyone defending Trumps economic policy by bringing up Hillary.
 
More decent news today with latest labor report. Employment up 160k. Unemployment down 300k. Manufacturing jobs up 40k.

Again, sadly, all this good news and additional tax revenue is being outspent.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Newsweek---biased
Clapper---his own ass is on the line over it being true
Independent---investigates 3 claims, none of which it proves as true, its a wash to support your claims. Apparently you never read it.
Denver Channel---Carter Page met with Russian Oil officials and Russians targeted certain demographics, hardly indicates more of the dossier is true. Nor are either a strong indicator of Steele's investigative chops, neither issue was particularly clandestine.

Steele is not an unbiased judge of his own work. He is invested in it being true, much as Clapper is.
Click to expand...

Newsweek is a main stream news source. It is considered a credible news agency by most normal people. Granted, those that sit on the far right wing of the plane think the fuselage is too far to the left, but it is they that out of touch with reality. I'm not talking to them; they are lost souls. But, for most rational people, its credible support for my statement.

This chart well displays the credibility of most news sources.

View attachment 67237469

The Independent article was about parts of the Dossier that have yet to be proven. It does, however, support my statement that much of it has been proven with this line in the first paragraph: "....The ongoing investigation into the Donald Trump’s Russian connections, however, has shown much of it to be true....."

Let me point out that you did not choose to refute my claim that none of the dossier has been discredited and much of it found to be true. Lacking an ability to do that, you chose to make an attempt (and a rather feeble one at that) to discredit my sources, most of which are mainstream. But, if you need more (they aren't hard to find), have at it.

Other references...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...dossier/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.305ac271f972

Earlier references:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-dossier-explainer-details
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ys-and-what-it-doesnt/?utm_term=.a3ff17930d48

The point is, the notion that the Dossier is "fake" is wishful, ignorant thinking by those that wish it to be fake. Much of it has been verified and none of it has been dis-proven.
 
upsideguy said:
Newsweek is a main stream news source. It is considered a credible news agency by most normal people. Granted, those that sit on the far right wing of the plane think the fuselage is too far to the left, but it is they that out of touch with reality. I'm not talking to them; they are lost souls. But, for most rational people, its credible support for my statement.

This chart well displays the credibility of most news sources.

View attachment 67237469

The Independent article was about parts of the Dossier that have yet to be proven. It does, however, support my statement that much of it has been proven with this line in the first paragraph: "....The ongoing investigation into the Donald Trump’s Russian connections, however, has shown much of it to be true....."

Let me point out that you did not choose to refute my claim that none of the dossier has been discredited and much of it found to be true. Lacking an ability to do that, you chose to make an attempt (and a rather feeble one at that) to discredit my sources, most of which are mainstream. But, if you need more (they aren't hard to find), have at it.

Other references...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...dossier/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.305ac271f972

Earlier references:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/11/trump-russia-dossier-explainer-details
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ys-and-what-it-doesnt/?utm_term=.a3ff17930d48

The point is, the notion that the Dossier is "fake" is wishful, ignorant thinking by those that wish it to be fake. Much of it has been verified and none of it has been dis-proven.
Click to expand...

The investigation has not released any official statements on how much of the dossier is true. To claim much of it is true without any sort of source or statement giving credence to that is bad journalism.

Newsweek? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsweek/

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. You know that.

WaPo story headline contains the word could, not did.

The Guardian story has two parts to every rumor, they decline to say yes very often in the section in which they ask, is it true.

Point of fact: officially almost no portions of the dossier have been proven conclusively true by the Mueller investigation or any other government agency. Reports from news articles lean towards true without any supporting evidence or investigations of their own. Each data point of the dossier should be proven individually, no part of it should be assumed true or false because any other single part is proven true or false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom