America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

If it can be tied to the DNC leaks and if the information released by the leaks was obtained illegally, it becomes a conspiracy.

"Tied" being a loaded word. So here we are again, no evidence of wrongdoing.

 

[McLaren]

The issue is the line about the e-mails being part of Russia's support for the Trump campaign. That suggests that there was more going on and that it was ongoing. If it can be tied to the DNC leaks and if the information released by the leaks was obtained illegally, it becomes a conspiracy.

Orrrr..... It suggests the Russians preferred Trump.


How quickly one forgets the "mutual respect" Hillary & Putin share for each other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...3a007c77bb4_story.html?utm_term=.17a49d3da325

“He was a KGB agent — by definition he doesn’t have a soul,” Clinton said. - 2008

http://time.com/4422723/putin-russia-hillary-clinton/

At a crisis meeting with his advisers on Dec. 8 of that year, the Russian leader chose to lay the blame on one meddling foreign diplomat: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton."She set the tone for certain actors inside the country; she gave the signal," Putin said of Clinton at the time, accusing her of ordering the opposition movement into action like some kind of revolutionary sleeper cell. "They heard this signal and, with the support of the U.S. State Department, started actively doing their work."

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153

“He was very upset [with Clinton] and continued to be for the rest of the time that I was in government,” said Michael McFaul, who served as the top Russia official in Obama’s national security council from 2009 to December 2011 and then was U.S. ambassador to Moscow until early 2014. “One could speculate that this is his moment for payback.”

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So here we are again, no evidence of wrongdoing.

It's not a smoking gun, but it certainly merits a deeper investigation (at the very least, the e-mails contradict previous statements on the subject). After all, Trump Jnr. met with a lawyer representing the Russian government with the promise of compromising information on Clinton. Even if that information was never provided, Trump Jnr. still went to the meeting.

Furthermore, the e-mails from the DNC and the information promised to Trump Jnr. do not need to be the same thing. All a prosecutor would need to do is demonstrate that the Russians acquired the DNC e-mails illegally as part of their support for Trump. As the meeting with Trump Jnr. was a part of that support for Trump, he can be considered part of the conspiracy.

 

[Danoff]

It's not a smoking gun, but it certainly merits a deeper investigation

That's fine with me. Maybe they'll find a smoking gun.

Furthermore, the e-mails from the DNC and the information promised to Trump Jnr. do not need to be the same thing. All a prosecutor would need to do is demonstrate that the Russians acquired the DNC e-mails illegally as part of their support for Trump. As the meeting with Trump Jnr. was a part of that support for Trump, he can be considered part of the conspiracy.

That's just silly. That's not at all a conspiracy.

In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future.

TJr. would need to have agreed (at a minimum) that someone should go commit this crime. I'd say more than that, he'd need to have supported it somehow - but to even talk conspiracy you have to have at least an acknowledgement and agreement with criminal activity.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'd say more than that, he'd need to have supported it somehow

Receiving that information and using it for its intended purpose doesn't count?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Receiving that information and using it for its intended purpose doesn't count?

And the evidence for this is where?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

This is turning into a real Colombo.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

And the evidence for this is where?

You want the evidence before the investigation even though the purpose of an investigation is to uncover the evidence.

 

[Danoff]

Receiving that information and using it for its intended purpose doesn't count?

Why would that count?

 

[Johnnypenso]

You want the evidence before the investigation even though the purpose of an investigation is to uncover the evidence.

I want the evidence that you are inferring exists.

 

[Danoff]

I meant that Trump Jr. is an idiot.

Apply whatever logical leap of faith from that that you wish. Don't act as if I'm saying it when you do so.

Why? Specifically. What action would a non-idiot have taken in his position?

I'm gently prodding you to answer this question - because I expect you'll have a hard time doing so without demonstrating my point. If you just ignore it, regardless of what you meant, you miss the opportunity to discover that perhaps that thing, which was not what you meant, was required to support your statement - meaning, you don't agree with your statement and need to re-evaluate.

 

[McLaren]

Independent claiming the whole meeting was setup by the Democrats to catch Trump; something Veritas showed they did before with folks close to the Clinton Campaign.

The President’s eldest son said he met lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, after being told she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms Clinton. He said it soon become clear she had no such information and rather wanted to press him about her effort to overturn the Magnitsky Act, a US law that blacklists several Russians linked to the 2009 murder of another Russian lawyer, Sergei Magnitsky.
--------
In a statement, Mark Corallo added: “Specifically, we have learned that the person who sought the meeting is associated with Fusion GPS, a firm which according to public reports, was retained by Democratic operatives to develop opposition research on the President and which commissioned the phony Steele dossier.”

Fusion GPS, which is based in Washington DC and was established by former Wall Street Journal reporters Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, found itself in the spotlight earlier this year after it emerged it was behind an “oppo research” dossier containing unproven and often salacious allegations about Mr Trump.

The company had originally been hired by Republican rivals of Mr Trump during the primary campaign. After he secured the party's nomination, the company was instead paid by Democratic financial supporters of Ms Clinton. In the summer of 2016, GPS hired former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, to help their work.
--------
“Fusion GPS is the company behind the creation of the unsubstantiated dossier alleging a conspiracy between President Trump and Russia,” Mr Grassley wrote in the letter. “It is highly troubling that Fusion GPS appears to have been working with someone with ties to Russian intelligence - let alone someone alleged to have conducted political disinformation campaigns– as part of a pro-Russia lobbying effort while also simultaneously overseeing the creation of the Trump-Russia dossier.”

https://www.independent.co.uk/News/...atalia-veselnitskaya-gps-fusion-a7834541.html

Waiting on the inevitable movie of this election/Presidency to come out in 5 years. This is the stuff Hollywood is made of.

 

[huskeR32]

Independent claiming the whole meeting was setup by the Democrats to catch Trump

That's not at all what the article said.

 

[McLaren]

That's not at all what the article said.

Don't be daft. A firm that was hired by Democrats & rival Republicans to dig up info on Trump & was responsible for creating fake headlines is behind a meeting with Trump Jr. claiming to have info on Clinton's campaign, but in reality, had nothing.

Either Veselnitskaya used Fusion's associate to get close to Trump Jr. to press on the Magnistky Act, or Fusion's associate intended on digging up more dirt by using her.

The whole thing is nothing more than another sham to be used against Trump without any evidence.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

That's not at all what the article said.

Oh I see what you're doing, are you really that irritated from the NK thread. One argument holds merit of deception, this is just giving slight insight and even giving the context that it is a claim, and thus must not be accepted as truth until proven.

 

[Tornado]

I'm gently prodding you to answer this question - because I expect you'll have a hard time doing so without demonstrating my point. If you just ignore it, regardless of what you meant, you miss the opportunity to discover that perhaps that thing, which was not what you meant, was required to support your statement - meaning, you don't agree with your statement and need to re-evaluate.

Nope, I'm pretty comfortable labeling Trump Jr. as an idiot based on his actions leading up to the meeting and his immediate response when enough info was dug up about it to confront him over it. Had you approached questioning me in a way other than trying to assign an argument to me from the start of the "conversation" I probably would have been more interested.


Sorry.

 

[Danoff]

Nope, I'm pretty comfortable labeling Trump Jr. as an idiot based on his actions leading up to the meeting and his immediate response when enough info was dug up about it to confront him over it.

Ok, well if you're not interested in having a discussion about it, consider not bringing it up in a discussion forum.

Had you approached questioning me in a way other than trying to assign an argument to me from the start of the "conversation" I probably would have been more interested.

I addressed this above. You shut down before you honestly evaluated your position.

 

[huskeR32]

Don't be daft. A firm that was hired by Democrats & rival Republicans to dig up info on Trump & was responsible for creating fake headlines is behind a meeting with Trump Jr. claiming to have info on Clinton's campaign, but in reality, had nothing.

Either Veselnitskaya used Fusion's associate to get close to Trump Jr. to press on the Magnistky Act, or Fusion's associate intended on digging up more dirt by using her.

The whole thing is nothing more than another sham to be used against Trump without any evidence.

Sure. Not arguing any of this stuff.

What I said was that the article never makes the claim that the Democratic party is behind the current situation with Donald Jr.

At best, one could jump to a conclusion based upon the firm's previous work with political parties, except as you yourself pointed out, that past work includes the Republicans as well. And if you want to make that jump, go ahead. The Independent, however, did not make that jump in the article, and you saying they did is a misrepresentation.

--

Oh I see what you're doing, are you really that irritated from the NK thread.

I'm really not; what a couple of internet arguers think of my posts on a video game forum matters zero to me.

That you think people dwell on stupid crap like that is a projection, methinks.

One argument holds merit of deception, this is just giving slight insight and even giving the context that it is a claim, and thus must not be accepted as truth until proven.

Nope, here's what "insight" would look like:

Based on this article from the Independent, it looks to me like the Democrats might be behind this whole thing.

But that's not what he said, is it? Let's revisit:

Independent claiming the whole meeting was setup by the Democrats to catch Trump

He's assigning a position to the newspaper that it didn't actually take. Nowhere does that article advance the notion that the Democrats are involved in the current situation; it simply draws a past connection between the party and the firm.

 

[Danoff]

@Tornado and all others here:

There are at least two forms of "that's not what I said" or "that's not what I meant". One form is "I don't want to be responsible for any of the implications of what I said". Another form is a misunderstanding (either a misunderstanding of what was literally said or what was meant). Misunderstandings are going to happen, a lot, on a forum like this. If you're going to take offense the moment someone ascribes a position to you that you either didn't say or didn't mean with your statements, it's going to be very difficult to have a discussion... with anyone... in any aspect of your life. Likewise it will be difficult to better refine your own thoughts, or even change them. I think ultimately that's why all of us are here, to better refine our thoughts and even change them in the face of new information.

The first version, the part where someone might deny the implications of their statements, comes from a closed mind - someone not interested in actually challenging their thoughts.

I think all of us here benefit from a thoughtful thorough discourse on these subjects - even when that discourse may be aggressive. So when someone has follow-up questions in response to an apparent misunderstanding, it benefits everyone, even you, to engage.

Edit:

There are other forms too... like a strawman etc. But I think those have been covered at length.

 

[McLaren]

Sure. Not arguing any of this stuff.

What I said was that the article never makes the claim that the Democratic party is behind the current situation with Donald Jr.

At best, one could jump to a conclusion based upon the firm's previous work with political parties, except as you yourself pointed out, that past work includes the Republicans as well. And if you want to make that jump, go ahead. The Independent, however, did not make that jump in the article, and you saying they did is a misrepresentation.

Read further on, next time.

After he secured the party's nomination, the company was instead paid by Democratic financial supporters of Ms Clinton.

He's assigning a position to the newspaper that it didn't actually take. Nowhere does that article advance the notion that the Democrats are involved in the current situation; it simply draws a past connection between the party and the firm.

What it does is show a lack of evidence to connect them. The article still heavily implies Democrats were behind the meeting when the company who set said meeting up, is a company used by the Democrats to attack Trump. Veselnitskaya's archived Facebook shows she attended an anti-Trump rally, and took a picture of Putin holding a baby-Trump. Seems a bit contradicting previously being part of a meeting that wanted to give dirt on Clinton?

As said, it's a big ruse being used by the media once again. The attempt by them to act like Trump Jr. did something illegal is hypocritical; because no campaign has ever declined to look at skeletons uncovered on the opposition? No concern over the fact somebody enticed him by claiming that Clinton had Russian backers?

 

[huskeR32]

Read further on, next time.

After he secured the party's nomination, the company was instead paid by Democratic financial supporters of Ms Clinton.

That's referring to the Steele dossier, not this current situation with Jr. Trump.

The article still heavily implies Democrats were behind the meeting when the company who set said meeting up, is a company used by the Democrats to attack Trump.

The article simply lays out the past connection, allowing the reader to come to their own conclusion about the current story. Which you've done. Which is fine.

Just don't do this...

Independent claiming the whole meeting was setup by the Democrats to catch Trump

...when it's not true.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I'm really not; what a couple of internet arguers think of my posts on a video game forum matters zero to me.

That you think people dwell on stupid crap like that is a projection, methinks.

You seem vexed by this for reasons I don't understand if it means nothing to you. I mean it reads pretty strongly for something that is without much care. My point is, not that you dwell on it, but would remember it and make sure people are actually constant with their view. It's a bit ironic that only a day after arguing about semantics of an article description on one thread, you and that same user are doing it on another.

Call it what you will, coincidence or something else but I just found it related if not that's fine, don't understand seeming anger. Only projection is that yes if someone does something one way and then opposite, I would wonder why.

Nope, here's what "insight" would look like:

He's assigning a position to the newspaper that it didn't actually take. Nowhere does that article advance the notion that the Democrats are involved in the current situation; it simply draws a past connection between the party and the firm.

Drawing a past connecting is basically the same thing as saying that since they've done it before it's likely they're in on it again, thus claiming and asserting that democrats had a hand in it. It takes quite the mental gymnastics to convoluted it in to something else when they're trying to make a loose connection. Not that I agree with it, but it's vastly different than some of the other click bait title summaries I've seen from other posters.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The problem with giving so much power to your family:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...ess-is-the-power-hes-given-his-family/8702602

 

[Skygrasper550]

A little off-topic, but I remain baffled that people suddenly think this is a problem.

News organizations have relied on anonymous sources for ages, and we as a citizenry would be significantly less-informed without them.

I don't mind mind anonymous sources, but when the term/idea/concept/what-have-you is abused just for the sake of ratings, it makes you question "is there really someone standing behind this source of news that they got? Or did they just make it up?". That's where it starts becoming a problem. That's why I had it in quotation marks.

 

[huskeR32]

t's a bit ironic that only a day after arguing about semantics of an article description on one thread, you and that same user are doing it on another.

It's not ironic at all - in the other thread, PM didn't falsely assign his own point of view to a news organization.

Drawing a past connecting is basically the same thing as saying that since they've done it before it's likely they're in on it again, thus claiming and asserting that democrats had a hand in it.

If that's the case, then the article is saying that both the Republicans and the Democrats "had a hand in it," as it pointed out that both parties worked with the firm in question in the past.

--

I don't mind mind anonymous sources, but when the term/idea/concept/what-have-you is abused just for the sake of ratings, it makes you question "is there really someone standing behind this source of news that they got? Or did they just make it up?". That's where it starts becoming a problem. That's why I had it in quotation marks.

That's what defamation laws are for.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It's not ironic at all - in the other thread, PM didn't falsely assign his own point of view to a news organization.

No he just falsely summarized an article in a clickbait link title of his own discretion. Here @McLaren said based on what the article has claimed, that they're claiming dems possibly were behind the Trump Jr. meeting. One assigns an absolution the other gives ambiguity. McLaren does seem to give his own view after, to that I don't deny. But I don't see this gross absolution to deceive like PM did, because of a vested interest.

I would say your own vested interest is what had you take up this argument, but it gets old that you and others you oppose do this and then try to play it back as if that isn't so. Then why else argue it? I don't believe nor have seen (that I can recall) you defend against those who make far reaching claims to diminish the image of say republicans and conservatives.

If that's the case, then the article is saying that both the Republicans and the Democrats "had a hand in it," as it pointed out that both parties worked with the firm in question in the past.

I could respect that angle, I don't disagree with you not liking McLaren's view of the article, what I disagree with is the thought that he is making a vast jump that is "South Koreans fear Trump or than NK".

 

[huskeR32]

Here @McLaren said based on what the article has claimed, that they're claiming dems possibly were behind the Trump Jr. meeting. One assigns an absolution the other gives ambiguity. McLaren does seem to give his own view after, to that I don't deny. But I don't see this gross absolution to deceive like PM did, because of a vested interest.

Again, the bit in bold is the problem. The Independent isn't claiming that; McLaren is.

I would say your own vested interest is what had you take up this argument, but it gets old that you and others you oppose do this and then try to play it back as if that isn't so. Then why else argue it? I don't believe nor have seen (that I can recall) you defend against those who make far reaching claims to diminish the image of say republicans and conservatives.

The funny thing is, despite your claims that I'm being partisan here, I don't necessarily disagree with McLaren's conclusion. It's certainly worth looking into the possibility that the Dems have continued using that firm, and asking what that might have to do with the Trump Jr. situation.

My problem here is simply the false appeal to authority. It's deceptive to ascribe your own thoughts to a news organization, to bolster your claims using their stature and reputation.

Had he said this:

It looks like the Democrats might be behind this whole thing

Rather than this:

Independent claiming the whole meeting was setup by the Democrats to catch Trump

I wouldn't have had any problems with it.

I could respect that angle, I don't disagree with you not liking McLaren's view of the article, what I disagree with is the thought that he is making a vast jump that is "South Koreans fear Trump or than NK".

As for PM's post in the Korea thread, I'll say it once more as clearly as I can: he didn't falsely attribute his own opinion to a news organization.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

PM did not falsely attribute his opinion to a news organisation. PM simply started the core issue of the article. Rather than address that core issue directly, some forum members took a page from the Donald Trump playbook on dealing with the media: if you don't like the story, attack the source. It doesn't matter how valid the story is or how flimsy the pretext for the attack is - if you can get enough people upset about someone daring to criticise you, you don't need to deal with the issue.

Chris Uhlmann was right - Trump has hit fast-forward on America's fall from the position of superpower.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Again, the bit in bold is the problem. The Independent isn't claiming that; McLaren is.

And again he is doing so because of what the article The Independent published is prefacing.

The funny thing is, despite your claims that I'm being partisan here, I don't necessarily disagree with McLaren's conclusion. It's certainly worth looking into the possibility that the Dems have continued using that firm, and asking what that might have to do with the Trump Jr. situation.

Okay, that doesn't change your initial reasoning for arguing, I think both sides should be looked at if there is enough credit to claim one or the other. Both sides having degrees of dissatisfaction with Trump which I don't disagree with in some regard. They should, which is why I think its plausible that dems or repubs set it up to hopefully down the line get rid of something no one politically wants. And when I say politically, as not to confuse some here, I mean those who are Washington life long politicians.

My problem here is simply the false appeal to authority. It's deceptive to ascribe your own thoughts to a news organization, to bolster your claims using their stature and reputation.

Had he said this:



Rather than this:



I wouldn't have had any problems with it.

It would be if the article wasn't helping give a certain notion on its own that could be read into as such. If it simply put it down to an entity may have had an effort in setting up Trump Jr, to by extension set up his father's administration there would be no issue here. What I agreed with you on, and agree with you still is that @McLaren left out key information in regards to this group being used exclusively to try and destroy Trump by republicans themselves at one point.

There is plenty in the article to claim that it could have easily been democrats themselves trying one last ditch effort to rid Trump, because of their recent history more so with the group than republican opponents of Trump. Once again I do not agree that is the case but I agree it should be investigated. I don't agree that McLaren tried to purposely give an assertion that Dems are behind it, rather claiming that the Independent is making an article that a notorious political for hire group was possibly behind this meeting.

As for PM's post in the Korea thread, I'll say it once more as clearly as I can: he didn't falsely attribute his own opinion to a news organization.

The crux of the issue for you is this thought that you and I are having a discussion on falsely attributing a claim on a news organization. When in fact I'm discussing the larger notion of just false representation in general because of a bias. This pigeonhole argument, which I've just now noticed PM using as a cop out, was never something I was talking about or addressing from your posts to begin with. What he did was claim in a general notion that "South Koreans fear Trump more than NK", with nothing concrete to go on. What I see from McLaren is a far cry from that.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Trump takes criticism for his comments about Brigitte Macron's figure:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...e-macron-beautiful-during-paris-visit/8707816

In any other context, this might not be an issue - women over the age of fifty are regarded as sex symbols in France. But in light of Trump's other comments about women, you have to wonder if he's trying to play to local sensibilities, or if it reveals a deeper attitude towards women.

But then, we're not talking about Trump Jnr.'s meeting with the Russian lawyer, but maybe that's the point.