TrumPutinGate

#778
#778
Orange_Crush said:
You were following false logic.

The affirmation by the victims credited the leaks. There is no such affirmation from Trump/group, as they are denying the claims.

Your leap was not logical at all.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming these weren't their accounts that were hacked, or even their emails.

I was simply stating how do you know these weren't embellished at all by the hackers?

As far as I know, neither Clinton or any of her associates have ever admitted that everything in the leaks was 100% factual.
 
#779
#779
Orange_Crush said:
You were following false logic.

The affirmation by the victims credited the leaks. There is no such affirmation from Trump/group, as they are denying the claims.

Your leap was not logical at all.
Click to expand...

No one is claiming these weren't their accounts that were hacked, or even their emails.

I was simply stating how do you know these weren't embellished at all by the hackers?

As far as I know, neither Clinton nor any of her associates have ever admitted that everything in the leaks was 100% factual.
 
#780
#780
volprof said:
No one is claiming these weren't their accounts that were hacked, or even their emails.

I was simply stating how do you know these weren't embellished at all by the hackers?

As far as I know, neither Clinton or any of her associates have ever admitted that everything in the leaks was 100% factual.
Click to expand...

They added a lot more credence by claiming they were the hacked emails. This was an implicit agreement to validity. Do you not see the difference between this agreement and Trump's denials?

Not at all? Really?
 
#784
#784
Orange_Crush said:
You keep making these claims, yet...
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't have a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth.

You will merely have to take media sources at their word that Donny once visited Moscow in '87 and that he re-emerged with anti-Reagan ad launches and anti-NATO public rhetoric. And that soon after, he became involved in the Russian mob. And that the Russian mob is intertwined with Russian intelligence services.
 
#785
#785
volprof said:
I'm sorry, I don't have a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth.

You will merely have to take media sources at their word that Donny once visited Moscow in '87 and that he re-emerged with anti-Reagan ad launches and anti-NATO public rhetoric. And that soon after, he became involved in the Russian mob. And that the Russian mob is intertwined with Russian intelligence services.
Click to expand...

I refuse to do that.

At the very least, can you point to any media stories from the 80s that discusses Trump's visits to Moscow? Can you point to any actual stories pre-and-post that show a marked change in trump's stance on Reagan and NATO?

Anything of substance that would tie an anti-reagan and anti-NATO sentiment to him being a Russian operative? I mean, I'm anti-NATO and I'm not a Russian operative. I'm anti-Obama and I'm not a Russian operative.

Is it just NATO that makes one a Russian operative? I'm also anti-EU, and anti-global bankers. Is that incriminating as well?

And is it just Reagan, or any President? Because if it's any president, guess what! You're a Russian operative!

The Russian Mob claim is a big deal, and I would think most fair and balanced people would ask for something beyond "Claims". if you were being accused, I'm sure you'd want people to demand actual evidence, right?


You seriously don't see how many holes begin appearing when you look at this without your anti-trump bias? You still can't understand someone demanding a bit more on the innocent-until-proven scale?

Think of it this way... You are on trial in a courtroom. We're the jury. How do you want us to treat your case?
 
#786
#786
volprof said:
I'm sorry, I don't have a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth.

You will merely have to take media sources at their word that Donny once visited Moscow in '87 and that he re-emerged with anti-Reagan ad launches and anti-NATO public rhetoric. And that soon after, he became involved in the Russian mob. And that the Russian mob is intertwined with Russian intelligence services.
Click to expand...

Boy I bet you were a holy terror when you found out Santa Clause wasn't real. We know you want to believe with all your heart but it's just not there.
 
#788
#788
Orange_Crush said:
I refuse to do that.

At the very least, can you point to any media stories from the 80s that discusses Trump's visits to Moscow? Can you point to any actual stories pre-and-post that show a marked change in trump's stance on Reagan and NATO?

Anything of substance that would tie an anti-reagan and anti-NATO sentiment to him being a Russian operative? I mean, I'm anti-NATO and I'm not a Russian operative. I'm anti-Obama and I'm not a Russian operative.

Is it just NATO that makes one a Russian operative? I'm also anti-EU, and anti-global bankers. Is that incriminating as well?

And is it just Reagan, or any President? Because if it's any president, guess what! You're a Russian operative!

The Russian Mob claim is a big deal, and I would think most fair and balanced people would ask for something beyond "Claims". if you were being accused, I'm sure you'd want people to demand actual evidence, right?


You seriously don't see how many holes begin appearing when you look at this without your anti-trump bias? You still can't understand someone demanding a bit more on the innocent-until-proven scale?

Think of it this way... You are on trial in a courtroom. We're the jury. How do you want us to treat your case?
Click to expand...

As you've indirectly admitted, only a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth (today's version of someone simply telling you in person) qualifies as evidence.

I'm not going to play your bizarre game.

Sorry.
 
#789
#789
volprof said:
As you've indirectly admitted, only a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth (today's version of someone simply telling you in person) qualifies as evidence.

I'm not going to play your bizarre game.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

You won't even respond to the honest question about what level of judgment we would use if you were in Trump's shoes?
 
#791
#791
Grand Vol said:
Hey OC? Doesn't it get old talking to the wall?
Click to expand...

Yes.

volprof said:
As you've indirectly admitted, only a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth (today's version of someone simply telling you in person) qualifies as evidence.

I'm not going to play your bizarre game.

Sorry.
Click to expand...

I'll just take this as a desperate post from the painted corner.
 
#793
#793
Orange_Crush said:
You won't even respond to the honest question about what level of judgment we would use if you were in Trump's shoes?
Click to expand...

What level of judgment you would use?

You would merely write it all off, because there's no leaked document straight from the horse's mouth. Only IC statements and "second-hand" leaks, and media reports.

I merely cut out the game and jumped to its inevitable conclusion.
 
#794
#794
volprof said:
What level of judgment you would use?

You would merely write it all off, because there's no leaked document straight from the horse's mouth. Only IC statements and "second-hand" leaks, and media reports.

I merely cut out the game and jumped to its inevitable conclusion.
Click to expand...

Once again... You are deflecting. I am asking you a serious question. It's your butt on the line. Your name in the papers. Your future in jeopardy.

Would you want to be treated the way you're treating Trump?

Would you want the level of judgment that I am proposing, or you are proposing?

Would you want your guilt found by innuendo, hearsay and accusations? or actual evidence?
 
#795
#795
Orange_Crush said:
Once again... You are deflecting. I am asking you a serious question. It's your butt on the line. Your name in the papers. Your future in jeopardy.

Would you want to be treated the way you're treating Trump?

Would you want the level of judgment that I am proposing, or you are proposing?

Would you want your guilt found by innuendo, hearsay and accusations? or actual evidence?
Click to expand...

There is actual evidence.

Just because it isn't a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth, whoever the horse would be in your arbitrary assessment, doesn't mean there isn't actual evidence.
 
#796
#796
volprof said:
There is actual evidence.

Just because it isn't a leaked document straight from the horse's mouth, whoever the horse would be in your arbitrary assessment, doesn't mean there isn't actual evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm asking for something besides word of mouth. That's all you've provided, while calling it "concrete" evidence.

Now, what standard would you want used against you? Please answer.
 
#797
#797
Orange_Crush said:
I'm asking for something besides word of mouth. That's all you've provided, while calling it "concrete" evidence.

Now, what standard would you want used against you? Please answer.
Click to expand...

There's a nearly 800 post thread here for that then.

Same thing with Hillary. We knew she was mishandling state security and her emails. The only reason it never went to trial is the same reason why Donny hasn't gone to trial yet as well: a media that is too concerned with other matters and corrupt politicians who refuse to do their jobs, most likely because money and/or power is at stake.

As time goes on, however, this will become too much for Donny. The first domino has been tipped.
 
#799
#799
Grand Vol said:
So, here's a hypothetical for the board.

Say Trump gets on board with a unified front against ISIS with Russia. Unified command structure and operations, the whole nine yards.

Who's head explodes first, VP or Carlos?
Click to expand...

It would never happen. It really won't happen after the comments that the commanding General in Afghanistan said and it really won't happen after the comments that SECDEF Mattis said. And yes my head would explode first.
 
#800
#800
carlos86 said:
It would never happen. It really won't happen after the comments that the commanding General in Afghanistan said and it really won't happen after the comments that SECDEF Mattis said. And yes my head would explode first.
Click to expand...

Now we know it's definitely happening.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top