Real World Event Discussions

The Evidens

POSTED BY: JO753
UPDATED: Monday, February 14, 2022 07:11
VIEWED: 159178
PAGE 55 of 121

THGRRI

Monday, July 10, 2017 10:39 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by G:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
... but seriously, how many do you need befor you realize that TRUMP HAZ SUM CONNECTION TO RUSSIA?

My opinion iz that Putin and hiz team picked virtually everybody. If there iz anybody that Trump picked for himself, he had to get approval from Putin first.

Risking bringing T in this conversation to call me a Commie or another Putin puppet, I don't see what's so wrong about having "some connection to Russia", in and of itself. The way things have been going in the EU, I actually feel more comfortable with that connection than with.... say... Merkel.

There could be something to what you say. By all means, investigate the man. We waste tons of tax payer dollars on much less important things everyday from handouts to war. It is important to be able to trust our president, or at least trust that he's not "in bed" with the Russians. I'm for spending that money investigating it even if it turns up nothing.

The problem J0, is when you take some legitimate concerns and blow them completely out of proportion and accuse Trump of treason and/or being a slave to Putin.

I expect that from Rachel Maddow. She's making 7 million dollars a year speaking to her echo chamber that was yelling "Fuck Trump", "Not my president" and "No way, KKK" from day one.

I expect more from you though.

It is possible to get your point across without peppering in obvious bias and unsubstantiated claims. When you do that, although you might get pats on the back by the echo chamber, you basically shut the conversation down when it comes to moderates or anybody on the other side.

Jesus, go fuck yourself. You spend 4 years throwing up on this board and NOW you - of all people - are going to say you're disappointed in Jo?!?!?!?! 'Cuz he didn't hold you hand softly enough?????? God damn unbelievable.

==============================

Love this response by G to Jack, so I chose to repost it with something I wish to point out. SIG,1IKI and Jack have been denying the evidence that keeps mounting against Trump. Fake news and lies they say. What they avoid addressing is the elephant in the room. They can't find anyone actually in government that hasn't said the Russians didn't do it.

Even news leaked out of the White House itself they call fake news. I'd like to see them post factual information of our government officials saying nothing here, we should stop investigating Trump. It's heartening to know this is all going to come crashing down on their heads. It won't just be Trump who's taken out. Nope, they'll never live it down. They will be saddled with the label, liar, loser, trolls and fools. Opps, they already are aren't they.

THGRRI

Monday, July 10, 2017 11:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JO753:
I will start this topic with a clarification on the meaning uv the word eVIDeNS.

Most peepl confuze it with 'proof' - sumthing that leadz directly to an undeniabl conclusion. Proof can be thot uv az a yes/no binary term. Sumthing either iz or iz not proof. There iz no degree to it.

Evidens can be anything - a 5th hand comment about a 3rd hand quote uv sumthing a drunk Skid Row bum mumbled in hiz sleep. Thats extreemly weak evidens, you woudnt bet much on it being true or even related to wutever you are considering, but its still evidens. It mite be true and related to your subject AND helpful.

Or evidens can be the literal smoking gun in the hand uv the perpetrator, identical to 'proof'. It can be anything between the 2 extreemz.

With this in mind, you can see that the statements 'there iz zero eveidens' and 'I see no evidens' rarely make sens.

Obviously, you haf to grade the value uv evidens, otherwize you coud waste a bunch uv time and effort prosessing garbaj. If sumwun iz oppozing you, they coud flood you with all sorts uv junk they just made up.

Now, if you want to derail the topic by trotting out a dictionary definition that duznt jibe with this, too bad - I'm claiming that eVIDeNS iz a new Nooalf word that, altho based on the old English 'evidence' iz more presise and useful. (even if I spell it in the casual slakrz nqalf way 'evidens')

If you arent clear on the consept uv meanz, motive & opportunity, look it up.

I'm going to try to list stuff in kronolojikl order. I will number each post so you dont haf to quote the entire thing for us to no wut yr commenting on.

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Love this response by G to Jack, so I chose to repost it with something I wish to point out. SIG,1IKI and Jack have been denying the evidence that keeps mounting against Trump. Fake news and lies they say. What they avoid addressing is the elephant in the room. They can't find anyone actually in government that hasn't said the Russians didn't do it.

Even news leaked out of the White House itself they call fake news. I'd like to see them post factual information of our government officials saying nothing here, we should stop investigating Trump. It's heartening to know this is all going to come crashing down on their heads. It won't just be Trump who's taken out. Nope, they'll never live it down. They will be saddled with the label, liar, loser, trolls and fools. Opps, they already are aren't they.

Who's trolling who, T?

You seem like you're really bored today. Don't you have some fake news to watch?

SIGNYM

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:21 AM

Hey THUGR:

Quote:
“That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

Later, at a Jan. 27 dinner, Comey said Trump asked him to investigate the origins of a salacious unverified Russian dossier. Comey said it would not be a good idea because it “might create a narrative that we were investigating [Trump] personally, which we weren’t.”- JAMES COMEY

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336802-rnc-comey-testimony-
proves-trump-not-under-investigation

-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.
I'll accept your apology any time, THUGR. But I know you're not man enough to give me one

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 2:45 AM

You're quoting something from six months ago troll. And its only a sliver of the investigation going on now. Nope, not going to cut it. You also quote the edited version of Comey's notes. Most were handed over to Mueller and we have no idea what's in them. Remember this as well. Comey did what he did to get a special prosecutor assigned to investigate. Why, because he knew a full out investigation would reveal Trumps crimes.

You are soon to be revealed as well comrade. Once you are it's over for you too.

The Russian lawyer who has been thrust into the spotlight following reports of her meeting with President Donald Trump's eldest son was a largely unknown figure until she began to represent the son of a Russian official in a major money-laundering trial.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/russian-thrust-trump-cam
paign-scandal-unknown-home-48546540

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Hey THUGR:

Quote:
“That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case on him. We agreed I should do so if circumstances warranted. During our one-on-one meeting at Trump Tower, based on President-elect Trump’s reaction to the briefing and without him directly asking the question, I offered that assurance.”

Later, at a Jan. 27 dinner, Comey said Trump asked him to investigate the origins of a salacious unverified Russian dossier. Comey said it would not be a good idea because it “might create a narrative that we were investigating [Trump] personally, which we weren’t.”- JAMES COMEY

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/336802-rnc-comey-testimony-
proves-trump-not-under-investigation

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
You are soon to be revealed as well comrade. Once you are it's over for you too.

You realize that the only way something like this would happen is if Signy were to be doxed like the guy that CNN went after.

I take this statement to mean that you are in full support of what CNN did, and that you would be in full support of somebody doing this to Signy because she posts ideas that you don't agree with.

Remind me again, who is the fascist here?

THGRRI

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 4:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
You are soon to be revealed as well comrade. Once you are it's over for you too.

You realize that the only way something like this would happen is if Signy were to be doxed like the guy that CNN went after.

I take this statement to mean that you are in full support of what CNN did, and that you would be in full support of somebody doing this to Signy because she posts ideas that you don't agree with.

Remind me again, who is the fascist here?

Not surprised you think it means something other than what I have stated before.

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 5:07 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
You are soon to be revealed as well comrade. Once you are it's over for you too.

You realize that the only way something like this would happen is if Signy were to be doxed like the guy that CNN went after.

I take this statement to mean that you are in full support of what CNN did, and that you would be in full support of somebody doing this to Signy because she posts ideas that you don't agree with.

Remind me again, who is the fascist here?

Not surprised you think it means something other than what I have stated before.

That's exactly what you mean.

You are for silencing voices that are not in line with your own.

The left has become the fascists, though they pretend not to be. This is why Google has a false definition of the word as the first result when looking it up.

SECOND

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 9:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6stringJoker:

You are for silencing voices that are not in line with your own.

The left has become the fascists, though they pretend not to be. This is why Google has a false definition of the word as the first result when looking it up.

Is it fascism to silence a Russian who simply wanted to help a Trump? Or was not fascism, but it was illegal for the Russian to help? So difficult to decide but only until the decision-maker remembers whether they are Republican or Democrat, then the answer is trivially obvious and completely changes. Politics sure ain't physics where the answer does not change with a change of reference frame.

The Trump campaign took a high-level meeting — Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner were also present — whose ostensible purpose was for the Trump campaign to work with the Russian government to take down Clinton, which certainly increases the plausibility that people from Trumpworld were involved in the anti-Clinton information operation — the DNC email hack — that we do know took place.

Trump, Jr.’s participation in the meeting is trouble for him because it’s illegal to seek foreign help of any kind, not just money, in a political campaign. Under 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510, the law governing foreign contributions to political campaigns, you don’t have to actually get useful help from foreigners. According to this law, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton, and heard her out as she attempted to describe it, might have constituted a federal crime.

“If what Donald Trump Jr. said was true ... then they should have never had the meeting in the first place,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

Whether Trump himself knew anything about the meetings his son was setting up is, of course, another matter. But it’s inherently difficult for Trump to put distance between himself and his own son.

www.vox.com/2017/7/10/15950494/trump-veselnitskaya-collusion

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6STRINGJOKER

Tuesday, July 11, 2017 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Trump, Jr.’s participation in the meeting is trouble for him because it’s illegal to seek foreign help of any kind, not just money, in a political campaign. Under 52 USC 30121, 36 USC 510, the law governing foreign contributions to political campaigns, you don’t have to actually get useful help from foreigners. According to this law, the mere fact that Trump Jr. asked for information from a Russian national about Clinton, and heard her out as she attempted to describe it, might have constituted a federal crime.

“If what Donald Trump Jr. said was true ... then they should have never had the meeting in the first place,” Nick Akerman, an assistant special prosecutor during the Watergate investigation who now specializes in data crime, says.

You guys may finally have something there, if the person he spoke to falls under a category of person that cannot be spoken with. The law is tricky though, and I'm just going based off of what you're saying here since I haven't read it and you didn't link anything to it.

You said:

Quote:
Trump, Jr.’s participation in the meeting is trouble for him because it’s illegal to seek foreign help of any kind, not just money, in a political campaign.

Everything I've read on the matter says that he didn't seek this help. It was offered to him. Again, depending on the wording of this law and any previous rulings on it, he may or may not be in breach of it.

I sure wouldn't want to have a legal struggle like that on my hands with no money for a good lawyer. I can imagine that Trump Jr. has the best lawyers.

Quote:
Whether Trump himself knew anything about the meetings his son was setting up is, of course, another matter. But it’s inherently difficult for Trump to put distance between himself and his own son.

You'll never link that to Trump, even if he knew about it. I doubt Trump Jr. would throw his Dad under the bus unless we're talking what eventually leads to charges of treason and the penalties for it. Short of that, all you would have on Trump is Thoughtcrime.