Posts made by Loki100

@amicusets:

1. which means the investigation is ongoing, and as was testified to under oath not only is it ongoing, but there had been no attempts to obstruct it.

This is a completely different point than the one you were just making. And the original point was, "James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion." So, I guess you are saying I was right all along.

@amicusets:

2. Because 1 is ILLEGAL and the other isn't. Trump, by definition, cannot illegally disclose classified information. He has been elected to be the Executive, the anonymous source hasn't. Trump gets to make the decision what to share and with whom, the anonymous source doesn't.

At no point were we ever discussing whether it was legal or illegal for Trump to share that information. We were discussing what was the threat to national security. What Trump did was obviously a threat to national security (such an obvious threat that there are WWII posters about it), and what the WaPo did was not.

@amicusets:

3. Eric Trump again denies this conversation and the fact that legal filings to Congress do not show income or debt ties to Russia (with few exceptions) debunk the claim.

I do like that you have debunk your own debunk. And that wasn't "legal filings to congress," that was Trump's own lawyer in a story from the AP: "President Trump's lawyers say that their review of his tax returns for the last 10 years does not show 'any income of any type from Russian sources'  — with 'a few exceptions.'"

As far as Eric Trump denying the conversation? Of course he does. He's perfectly capable of lying.

@amicusets:

As for the Don Jr. quote from 9 years ago, you do realize he was discussing Russia's economy and how at that time the ruble was strong over the dollar, so the Russian investors were using that to invest in properties outside of Russia. Not RUSSIA, but Russian investors, 9 years ago.[/blockquote]

Are you seriously trying to imply that Russian oligarchs don't have ties to Russia's government? Also you should note how he keeps saying "we" and "our" in the quote.

@amicusets:

As for your link, again, it proves NOTHING! Goodness gracious!

After all, it's obvious that a state run bank financing Trump is in no way a compromising tie to Russia.

@amicusets:

Critical thinking is your friend! Use it.

This applies to you, not to me.

@amicusets:

You do realize the "anonymous" sourcing that has fueled this one story being reported by every other paper "claims" information was said that has already been debunked by people in the actual room. Not all of these sources actually vet the information anymore and just rely on the original author to have done that. Every story has been debunked by actual named sources. Just because you wish something to be doesn't make it so.
Deal in facts and not hyperventilating soundbites! You will not only be better informed, but less emotional.

Sooo, your switching from this statement, "Where do you get your information, and how does it get through the tinfoil" now? Because earlier you were completely incredulous that the story even existed, now your going "ANONYMOUS SOURCES! ANONYMOUS SOURCES!" It makes you seem quite disingenuous that you would flip on a dime like that. You are also completely wrong, for the second time in a row. If you read all the links I sent you, you'd see that they cover the story as it developed, including details not in the original story and including details that other news organizations broke.

Anywho, as far as named sources verifying things. How about the fact that Donald Trump verified the story himself?

http://time.com/4780312/president-trump-russian-leak-tweet/

You should pay more attention to the Trump cycle. Guess what happens every single time something like this happens? White House rats crawl out of the woodwork and deny and deny and deny… and then Trump verifies the story exactly as it was reported.

Your last sentence? It applies to you, and not to me.

@amicusets:

@Loki100:

@Frederick:

I don't suppose that Hillary instructing some private company with no security clearance to access and delete at least 30,000 e-mails, which were property of the U.S. government, AFTER being ordered by Congress to turn them over, is obstruction of justice? nooo….

Yeah. It isn't believable that anyone cares about any of this when Trump compromised the identity of American operatives in the Middle East when he divulged information of the highest classification level to the Russians in an effort to brag to them. Try again.

Where do you get your information, and how does it get through the tinfoil?

The Wall Street Journal: https://www.wsj.com/articles/loose-lips-sink-presidencies-1494977056
Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/could-trump-be-impeached-over-comey-memo-impeachment-2017-5
Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/5/17/15653434/israel-spy-compromised-trump-russians
ABC News: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/trumps-disclosure-endangered-spy-inside-isis-israel-officials/story?id=47449304
Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russian-foreign-minister-and-ambassador/2017/05/15/530c172a-3960-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?utm_term=.ff4dfc3e03a4
The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/us/politics/trump-russia-classified-information-isis.html
The Times of London: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trump-i-have-the-right-to-share-intelligence-with-russia-mnkf52btv
Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/US-officials-Trumps-intel-leak-endangered-life-of-spy-placed-inside-ISIS-by-Israel-490968
The Toronto Star: https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/05/15/trump-revealed-highly-classified-information-to-russians-us-officials-say.html
The Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/world/all-the-presidents-strawmen-defend-trumps-oval-office-blunder-with-russians-20170516-gw5y1h.html
The Cape Times (from Cape Town, South Africa): http://www.iol.co.za/pretoria-news/trump-gave-secret-data-to-russia-9184600

It's literally all over the news from the English speaking world (and non-English speaking world)

@amicusets:

1. Comey was not investigating anything. The FBI is. Comey wasn't an agent, and wasn't "doing" anything other than overseeing an arm of the DOJ.

…Which means he's overseeing the investigation.

@amicusets:

2)It LITERALLY IS relative, since WaPo getting their hands on that information is actually a criminal offense by the person that gave them the information and does more harm to our Nat. Security THAN ANYTHING Trump has even been accused of doing.

The Washington Post was actually quite circumspect in order to prevent divulging any classified material. Please explain to the group how a newspaper reporting that Trump out and out gave the Russian classified intelligence is more harmful to our national security than Trump giving the Russians classified intelligence? But good job at attempting to deflect from the real issue.

@amicusets:

3)More lies. Whether or not Gen. Flynn did anything improper is highly suspect. The FBI cleared him regarding the call in December on January 24th because what he did WAS proper. How long exactly did Manafort actually work for Trump? Where did his children confirm any such ties? Surely you aren't trying to use an article by an unnamed source that claims Eric told him something golfing several years ago, and that which Eric flatly denied?

The FBI is still investigating Flynn, so they obviously haven't "cleared" him. It doesn't matter how long Manafort worked for Trump. And it wasn't an unnamed source, it was a journalist there specifically to write a story on Trump's golf courses, with the statements being corroborated by two others.

Not to mention, of course, this quote from Donald Trump Jr. “… In terms of high-end product influx into the U.S., Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets, say in Dubai, and certainly with our project in SoHo and anywhere in New York. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia,”

And, of course, here's the Wall Street Journal:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-state-run-bank-financed-deal-involving-trump-hotel-partner-1495031708

@knaunko:

Not to mention that Clinton didn't instruct them to delete the emails after being told to turn them over, it was a standing instruction made long before. Plus, most of those emails were probably personal, and the ones that were to do with her work as Sec of State were not classified at the time the emails were sent or received. This email malarkey is just ridiculous.

If there is one thing we know now it is that the year and a half Clinton email saga was a completely political witchhunt and a non-scandal pursued strictly to achieve partisan ends. Trump began mishandling classified information the moment he began to get it, and now outing American operatives hostile foreign powers. Which is something so far beyond anything Clinton was even accused of doing that it beggars description.

Anyone who even raised an eyebrow towards Clinton's handling of the arcane rules of IT management in the government should be screaming for Trump's impeachment.

@Frederick:

I don't suppose that Hillary instructing some private company with no security clearance to access and delete at least 30,000 e-mails, which were property of the U.S. government, AFTER being ordered by Congress to turn them over, is obstruction of justice? nooo….

Yeah. It isn't believable that anyone cares about any of this when Trump compromised the identity of American operatives in the Middle East when he divulged information of the highest classification level to the Russians in an effort to brag to them. Try again.

@mhorndisk:

Maxine Waters admitted today that there was no evidence of Russian collusion. But, they'll keep looking. It's been like 9 months and still no evidence has surfaced, not even an iota or a shred. Why do you keep pushing this narrative?

Other than all the evidence that has surface. But I am just going to assume you were very much against any investigation into the Clintons, after all they've been continuously investigated since the '90s without anyone finding any evidence.

@mhorndisk:

he's not a politician and he gets in there and says Screw you GUYS! I'm going to be president and I'm gonna kick your ass because you're all greedy politicians!

Of course Trump is the greediest politician we've ever seen. He's so brazenly corrupt that countries like China are just handing money to his children/their spouses in order to get favorable treatment.

@mhorndisk:

You just don't like him, but please stop insulting everyone's intelligence when Comey absolved Trump 3 times and said there was nothing to investigate (which Trump stated in his letter to Comey when he fired him.)

First off, the FBI doesn't absolve anyone, that's what trials are for. Secondly, there has been more than enough to investigate and that's what the FBI was doing.

@mhorndisk:

Do you REALLY think he would meet with the Russian Ambassador and leak highly classified information when he's been saying all along that he's being tapped and leaks are happening all over? Why would you think he would be so stupid? The story is stupid! I just don't understand why you actually believe in this nonsense.

Yes. He's an idiot and a braggart. And he already admitted that's exactly what he did.

@mhorndisk:

Because the jobless rate has gone way down,

It's gone down, at most, 0.3% and we're heading into summer.

@mhorndisk:

and the stock markets have skyrocketed,

Oh really now?

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKCN18D1E0?il=0

@mhorndisk:

and the debt has actually decreased for the first time in almost a hundred years!

It decreased by 291 million (a piddling sum relative to the total) and it has already started going up again. Oh, and the debt decreased between February and March of 2016, so you are off by a hundred years.

@mhorndisk:

The illegal immigrant rate has dropped 70%!

And this is just completely made up. It doesn't even make sense as a statistic.

@mhorndisk:

In fact, the economy is doing better than it has in many years.

Haha, no.

@mhorndisk:

Dude, there's nothing to defend. Maxine Waters went on radio today and admitted that there was NO evidence after almost a year long investigation!

Why do you keep repeating the exact same things over and over and over? Often unprompted. It comes off as disingenuous and using talking points.

@mhorndisk:

James Comey exonerated Trump 3 times, stating there was no collusion.

Now that would be quite an accomplishment considering his investigation is incomplete and he was fired in the middle of it.

@mhorndisk:

The Washington Post reported that Trump in his recent visit with Russian Ambassador revealed highly classified info.
-How would they know that? And why would Trump do that after repeatedly stating they were tapping him?

It literally is irrelevant how they knew considering Trump went on Twitter and confirmed everything.

@mhorndisk:

Get over your hate for Trump. He's not a Republican. He's just using their platform. And the claim that he is colluding with Russia has after 9 months been proven to show no evidence whatsoever, so it's pretty much just dumb.

Well other than Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, that fact that his children confirmed his business ties (including loans) to Russia, and the fact that this past week Trump literally gave Russia highly classified intel that compromised American agents.

@raphjd:

It was still the conservative government that gave it to us.

Labour thought that we had enough equality with "separate, but somewhat equal" civil partnerships.

So the conservatives who voted by majority against it gave it to you, and labor who voted by overwhelming majority for it thought it wasn't necessary?

Is this really your thought process?

@raphjd:

In the UK, it was the conservatives that gave us marriage equality.    Liberals were happy with "separate but some what similar".

It was the liberal government of New Labour that constantly fought against equality in the courts.

Well someone forgot to tell the Labor MPs when they were voting on the bill. The Conservatives voted 127 to 117 against the bill, while Labor voted 194 to 14 for the bill.

@strangeloop:

Ridiculous double standard and barefaced too.

I'm curious as to how taking offense to what is obviously a racist insult and not taking offense to what is obviously not a racist insult is a "double standard?"

@raphjd:

Of course criminals will lie.  That is not in dispute.

I was talking about an innocent man being arrested.

A person being arrested because rapists lied about that individual. If you acknowledge criminals lie, then you've already acknowledged your entire point is baseless.

@Frederick:

What has left wing politics done for LBGTQ?

Everything. Literally every advancement of gay rights. Everything from the decriminalization of sodomy to the marriage equality. It was all left-wing politics, left-wing activism, left-wing political parties. The exact "libtards" you libel in your post.

@Frederick:

I would remind you that Hillary was 100% anti gay marriage until election time rolled around.

She also tenaciously used the state department to put pressure on nations with anti-LGBT laws, and started tying US aid to LGBT rights. She also reversed the Bush era policy of rejecting LGBT refugees. There are hundreds (if not thousands) of LGBT people alive today because of her.

@Frederick:

Also, there should be some sort of harassment laws prohibiting people from being questioned about their sexuality.  It bothers me whenever a celebrity is cross-examined about who they are dating, if they have any kids, if they are married, etc.   It really pissed me off that in offices I worked in, the straight people would drag their kids and wife in when applying for a job to squeeze more money out of the business owner.   And when a gay guy's boyfriend picked him up from work, that led to that guy being forced to quit a couple of months later.

Hey, remember how I said left-wing politics were responsible for everything? Well in places where those left-wing politics succeeded then that guy could have sued for discrimination. In places where the right-wing politics succeeded, he is shit out of luck.

@raphjd:

The point is, the feminist narrative says this kind of thing is extremely rare.

…No, it actually says the exact opposite. The feminist narrative pretty blatantly states that a rapist will lie in order to get out of trouble, which is exactly what happened in this case.

@vnemerald:

The time he spends on vacation is not the biggest issue here. The biggest issue with it is the amount of taxes that goes into his vacations (that includes security detail and other things)

While I realize that firing the guy investigating him for investigating him and sharing classified intelligence and outing American operatives to Russian intelligence… in order to brag to them... are way, way more important. but...

The sheer amount of money being spent to allow Melania to live in a New York penthouse (some of which is directly going back to Trump showing his affinity for brazen corruption) is staggering (even going by the lowest estimates). Then there is also the fact that the president of the US is using his presidency to shill his shitty resort, and (of course) conducting classified defense briefings in the middle of the dining room where patrons were literally photographing them with their cell phones.

@Frederick:

I don't know what rock you live under, but Trump has been working night and day, 7 days a week on the economy and healthcare.

Are you serious? Is this supposed to be a joke? The one thing we know about the Trump presidency is just how much time he's spending vacationing and playing rounds of gulf.

Details are important:

A local woman had reported that she'd been raped by some of the miners and Pili was arrested as a suspect.
"When the police came the men who did the rape said, 'This is the man who did it,' and I was taken to the police station," Pili says.

So the local woman goes to the police, telling them she was raped. The police go to the mine and ask around. The miners who actually did rape her lie and tell the police that Pili was the one who raped her and then the police arrest Pili based on those miners.

I'm reasonably certain feminists both believe the police are not great at handling rape cases, and that rapists will lie to get out of trouble.

@raphjd:

:police:  You are violating our forum rules, by repeatedly calling me a troll.   :police:

Care to show me where, considering it isn't in your posted rules? It also seems quite a little self serving, might I ask just how often you are accused of trolling?

@raphjd:

Those are my posts, whether you like it or not.     And like I said before, you can't debunk what I said, so you are only left with name calling.

Okay fine. Let's play the debunk game. You said, "Feminists have taken Due Process away from men when accused of sexual assault on college campuses." Due process is fairly specific to the US, and pertains to US laws. College campuses don't pass laws, so they can't actually infringe upon due process. What college campuses do is have policies, which are enacted through various bureaucratic processes. Of course then you have to acknowledge that each college is its own unique institution with its own unique set of policies, and massive variation between them. And since you didn't actually name a college, we can't actually look up what its policies actually are. So what you actually mean is, "Some college boards/presidents/administrators have enacted policies that _feel are unfairly biased in favor of the victims of sexual assault." Which is a very, very, very long way from your initial statement.

@raphjd:

I responded to your comments by posting my rebuttal with facts.    If you are not willing to have a proper respectful conversation, then do not reply.

:police:  You can disagree with me and have a civil discussion and there is no problem.  If all you have is name calling, then you are risking being muted on the forums.   :police:

Actually you didn't. Note again that you didn't actually name a college. And if you at everything else you have posted, it is similarly long on claims, short of facts to actually examine._

@raphjd:

Actually, it's a direct and acurate response to you and your fellow SJWs.

No, it's not, bumper sticker. Here's how discussion works. I say something to you, then you say something back related to the context of my initial statement. So when you go off on one of your little copy and paste tangents, it's not a response to me.

@raphjd:

You hate anyone who disagrees with you.   You claim that anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot who can only parrot the right wing.   You keep ignoring the act that your side does nothing but name call.  You never produce any evidence to back up your claims.

Sort of like how you can only produce pre-manufactured statements that you hope will be relevant to the conversation that is happening around you? When you are litterally copying things, then saying "parrot" is pretty accurate.

@raphjd:

AGAIN, if you people really think what you are doing is so good, then why do you need to hide your faces?!   Why do you need to assault the media who is covering what you are doing in a public space?!

And this is the perfect example of exactly what I was talking about (in fact, I noticed it earlier, but felt the sheer hypocrisy of someone in the LGBT community being anti-rioting was more important to point out). Literally no one was talking about this. You brought it up out of no where, it doesn't apply to anyone here (nor to the conversation). You don't even proffer a context to make sense of it. Just an accusation hurled around, because you picked it up in the comments section on a right-wing website.

This is textbook troll behavior.

@raphjd:

Stonewall was completely different from an election.   And as you seem to ignore, the Stonewall rioters didn't cover their faces.  Nor did they use "injustice" as a reason to loot.

Wow. You really are ignorant.

@raphjd:

You are correct.   However, you forgot to mention that white men are supposed to be self-loathing, according to SJW.

Yeah, none of this actually makes sense as a response to me. You really, really can't do anything except repeated random nonsense you picked up from across the right-wing internet.

@raphjd:

Why does your side need to hide their faces when your side claims you are the good guys?    Back when I was young, I never hid my face or rioted.

Well you should have. Maybe GTFO until you have read the Wikipedia entry on Stonewall before complaining about people rioting on a website about gay porn.