‹ First  < 6 7 8
 
   
 

The “Memo”

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  362
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
07 July 2019 07:58
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 07 July 2019 02:30 AM
Garret - 06 July 2019 10:17 PM
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher - 06 July 2019 05:21 PM

Garret

The document you link refers to disbursements and campaign contributions (i.e. “money” or monetary value), not the kind of information applicable in this context.

I never said that the tweet was binding law.  I just think that the odds that she has a better understanding of the law than you is highly likely.

If it’s an argument of faith you’re after, fair enough.  One would hope you’re right.  However, Alan Greenspan thought financial markets were so self-correcting that even with outright fraud they would right themselves, and look what that got us, both in 1998 and 2008.  I’m sure in a similar situation one could say, “Yeah, Anus, like you know more about financial markets than Alan Greenspan, Chairmen of the Fed!” 

Public officials can be despairing ignorant of their own office, just as posters on the Internet can be.

 

So, my argument is supported by quoting experts in their field.

Your argument is “anyone could be wrong… therefore I’m right.”?

Also, whether or not the information has value is immaterial to whether the campaign attempted to coordinate or cooperate with the Russian government.  We know that Jared Kushner attempted to set up a back channel with the Russian government.  We know that DJT Jr took the meeting with the Russian government lawyer.  We know that DJT openly asked for the Russian governments help in a speech.  We know that Michael Cohen was meeting with investors and government officials in Moscow.  We know that Manafort was passing them campaign polling information.  We know that the Russian government attempted to influence voters through facebook and twitter.

This is a picture of cooperation and coordination.  The Mueller report lays all of this out in great detail.  A lot of it we already knew prior to the reports release.  Plus, there is a lot of the report that has been redacted, so claiming that the report doesn’t say something could be wildly inaccurate.  There are still indictments with pending trials, which surely there will be more details that come out (such as Roger Stone’s).

To me it really feels like since some of this has been known for so long, and the fact that Trump did some of it literally in the public eye, that people forget about it or dismiss it.

Trump asked the Russians to hack her e-mails, but because he did it in a public speech, you’re going to say that it doesn’t count, or that because he just talks off the cuff, it doesn’t count.  That is pretty stupid logic IMO.  Name another criminal or civil offense that is illegal in private, but perfectly fine in public.

[ Edited: 07 July 2019 09:09 by Garret]
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
 
Avatar
 
 
TheAnal_lyticPhilosopher
Total Posts:  847
Joined  13-02-2017
 
 
 
07 July 2019 15:09
 

So, my argument is supported by quoting experts in their field.
Your argument is “anyone could be wrong… therefore I’m right.”?

[Sigh…again]

No, Garret, it isn’t.  My last point was that public officials can be wrong about what they presumably should be right about.  Previously, I’d given an independent argument why this one is probably wrong, which you dodge (again) by appealing to her authority—which rather begs the question whether or not this one is right.  Then I gave an egregious example where one was wrong, one which could easily be multiplied.  Then I implied I could be wrong too, me being included in “posters on the Internet” who can be “ignorant.”

Now, I get that you are basically a set of pompous attitudes given to delusional, knee-jerk reactions, but now I wonder in what proportion, exactly, you lack intelligence and intellectual decency as well. Reading your interactions on the forum suggests I’m probably not the only one who can speak to this curiosity.

Either way, I really don’t care anymore.  You are, no doubt, victorious over the fabrications you’ve created, and placed me in—to wit “you’re going to say…”  So be it.  At this point I’d usually say “See you around,” but I won’t be seeing you around.  Our conversations have proven there is nothing in it for me.

 

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  362
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
07 July 2019 15:25
 

Oh no, some random guy on the internet told me off.

Some of you guys on here take yourselves way too fucking seriously.

[ Edited: 07 July 2019 15:36 by Garret]
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6685
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
09 July 2019 15:07
 
Garret - 07 July 2019 03:25 PM

Oh no, some random guy on the internet told me off.

I’ll bet you’re crushed.

 
 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  362
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 July 2019 08:53
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 09 July 2019 03:07 PM
Garret - 07 July 2019 03:25 PM

Oh no, some random guy on the internet told me off.

I’ll bet you’re crushed.

A message for you from 1984.

 
‹ First  < 6 7 8