Holy fuck mojo, 25k? Someone is popular.
Printable View
Holy fuck mojo, 25k? Someone is popular.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What did you go to make bigred ban you?
Post a pic of a dog?
???Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm popular??
I'm popular!
Hey, Dad, I made it! I'm popular on the internets!
That's how many views your profile page has.
I can't remember what I did to annoy bigred, but I'm pretty sure I deserved it.
Well, it's just the single account from Woodward, and from what I can find he hasn't dropped much data to verify it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Secretary of Defense James Mattis appears to have told Trump that the troops are there (SK) "to prevent WWIII." Which Mattis could affirm or refute, but it's really a tangential point to the whole story. Trump's unsent tweet didn't call for the removal of troops, but the families of the troops.
Woodward says Trump told Rob Porter, then a staff secretary, the tweet "may be [Trump's] best ever." Which could be corroborated by Porter to verify that the tweet actually existed at some point, but I don't see any more to gain from that.
Woodward mentions "back-channel communications with NK" and "profound alarm in the Pentagon leadership" that NK would take pulling the family members of our troops as a sign of eminent attack. But there's nothing tangible in those words to verify unless someone in the Pentagon leadership volunteers to confirm the story.
Do you have any sources of responses or any corroborating stories to go along with this?
I don't see anything in what Woodward said that can be taken too seriously without at least some confirmation from another source.
***
The part about Cohn and the stolen letter is a separate story. That letter is easy to find online and read, and Again, the book has only been public for 2 days and I don't see anything from Cohn directly which affirms or refutes the book.
Yeah, just less than that, but IDK why people are interested in my profile page.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
It's not like there's much there.
I wonder what they were hoping to find?
I did update my current employment just now, which was out of date by a few years, lol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The fact that it's Woodward and not someone like Omarosa gives the story credibility imo.
And you can't really expect those guys who are still in the WH to say 'yeah, he's an idiot, he actually said that' about Trump.
It gives us reason to expect less detritus than from another source, but Woodward is still a human, and therefore still has bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
He has a history of keeping his bias more controlled than some others in his field, but that doesn't mean that he will never make a mistake.
I never said I expected that. I said that without some form of corroboration about the story, then we don't really have anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No one needs to say Trump is anything. Just that a certain tweet existed, or that "back-channel communications with NK" did happen and that NK said they would interpret the removal of family member from SK as preparation to invade NK, which was alarming to certain Pentagon officials.
True, but without alternative accounts being provided that are trustworthy, I'm inclined to go with Woodward. He at least doesn't seem to have an axe to grind.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
What I meant was, anything in general that makes the president (their boss) look stupid they're going to disown. I'd wager most of the ones who aren't even there anymore wouldn't want to admit things, if they were true, if it made the current president (their former boss, and still the president) look like a knucklehead. People like Omarosa are the exception because she's half bonkers herself.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Why? Because he just happened to be the guy that picked up the phone when Deepthroat called?? That makes him honest, and fair, and credible?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I heard Stalin patted a puppy once. He must be a hell of a guy too.
I read most of one of Woodward's books. It was called "The Price of Politics". And it was a bunch of hearsay and 3rd hand accounts about how poorly Barack Obama demonstrated leadership in the white house. Seems that one didn't get much play in the mainstream media.
It also seems that this guy is making a living by milking his white house sources for gossip and publishing it in books with ominous and scary titles.
I mean, he claims that both Mattis and Kelly made belittling comments about Trump in front of other staffers.
There absolutely, positively, zero chance that Marine Corps generals, at the highest levels of their careers, are going around casually dropping derogatory comments about the commander in chief. There is just no way that stuff happened, ever, at all.
He claims to have documented all his sources. So once he dies we'll find out if he's lying or not I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Not quite on the same level as having people steal files off your desk before you can sign them though, is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ya, funny how much of this account lines up with all the other stories and leaks and the Op Ed coming out of the WH. Just a coincidence I guess.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You mean Marine Corps generals never criticize the president, ever? I didn't know that was in their code of conduct, I thought that they were used to speaking their mind whether others liked it or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Well you learned something today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Confirmation bias much?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You mean when I keep hearing the same thing from independent sources I become more inclined to believe it? Yeah, I guess so.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
No...that's not what happens when you get sources "on background"
That's someone saying "I heard that this certain ugly thing might have happened, but you didn't hear that from me"
You need to learn what "independent" means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So a Democrat college professor from Palo Alto says her life was de-railed by Brett Kavanaugh because when he was 17 or something, he sat on her.
Maybe he shouldn't be allowed to ever work again.
Attachment 1025Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
He wrote down all the sources of all the conversations he reported. So when event X happens in room Y and Woodward decribes who says what, in his little notebook he has written down 'related by Gen. Kelly, who was in the room at the time.'
Then, in a couple of years when Trump is in jail, Kelly will be under no obligation to lie about what he told Woodward, but can instead say 'that's right, I told him I would have shoved my resignation up his ass', or he can say 'no I never said that, Woodward made that up about me.'
He already has admitted that the sources of the conversations were not the people engaged in the conversations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Because X event in room Y actually happened, doesn't mean that the people describing those events are telling the truth.Quote:
So when event X happens in room Y and Woodward decribes who says what, in his little notebook he has written down 'related by Gen. Kelly, who was in the room at the time.'
If you can even entertain the thought that a marine corp general would say that directly, or indirectly, about the commander in chief, then you're a woefully under-IQ'd for this discussion.Quote:
Then, in a couple of years when Trump is in jail, Kelly will be under no obligation to lie about what he told Woodward, but can instead say 'that's right, I told him I would have shoved my resignation up his ass',
Why isn't it credible if he says that now? Woodward has a second hand source that says he did say it. Kelly hasn't done anything honorable in his life that might earn him some credibility????Quote:
or he can say 'no I never said that, Woodward made that up about me.'
Attachment 1027Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I can only assume you got that little tidbit from Fox News Land.
As if Woodward says, 'hmmm I think I'll write a book. And, I'm going to talk to Gary Cohn today. Should I ask him about stuff he and others said in a room while he was there? Nah, that's too easy. I'm going to ask him if he has any gossip he heard from Omarosa'.
Get real.
Attachment 1027Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No-one assumes they're the word-for-word truth. But when you step back and look at the big picture, you're going to have a hard time convincing me all these sources are lying to make Trump look like an idiot. Especially since he already makes himself look like one every time he tweets or goes on TV.
Attachment 1026Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So your reasoning is there's a law of the universe that says Marine Corps Generals can't possibly criticize the president?
Attachment 1027Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Take the Cohn resignation as an example. Woodward has Gary Cohn who reported a convo he was directly involved in with Kelly outside the president's office. Kelly still works for the president and obviously isn't going to admit to the public (yet) that he told Cohn he would have told the president to shove his resignation up his ass six times. So instead he says 'everything in that book about me is a lie'.
Oh, and I should add that if Kelly DID admit to saying those things, his life would be instantly made miserable, he'd get fired, and Trump would probably pull all the US dependents out of Korea tomorrow and start WWIII within two weeks.
It was directly from Bob Woodward's interview with Savannah Guthrie on the Today show (which is not on Fox).Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
haven't you guys been bitching forever now about a lack of civil debate. And yet when it's YOU who is confronted with information that doesn't fit your world view, you automatically go for "that's probably Fox BS".
Facts are facts kid. Use your brain
Regarding the bolded: How many sources? What is "all these"?Quote:
No-one assumes they're the word-for-word truth. But when you step back and look at the big picture, you're going to have a hard time convincing me all these sources are lying to make Trump look like an idiot.
Furthermore, WHY is that so hard to believe? Do you think Mattis and Kelley told Bob Woodward these things? Can we at least agree that the chances of that are about zilch?
So Woodward is hearing this stuff third-hand. Is it at all possible that someone in the whitehouse has an axe to grind and either made something up, or misunderstood something, or took something out of context just to get their story in a book?
Yeah, he's really bringing himself down. I mean, he's only POTUS. If he was smarter, I guess he would be supreme overlord of the universe.Quote:
Especially since he already makes himself look like one every time he tweets or goes on TV.
Pretty muchQuote:
So your reasoning is there's a law of the universe that says Marine Corps Generals can't possibly criticize the president?
"would have told".....so what?Quote:
Take the Cohn resignation as an example. Woodward has Gary Cohn who reported a convo he was directly involved in with Kelly outside the president's office. Kelly still works for the president and obviously isn't going to admit to the public (yet) that he told Cohn he would have told the president to shove his resignation up his ass six times. So instead he says 'everything in that book about me is a lie'.
First of all, no he wouldn't have. 2nd, if he did say it, that's obviously hyperbole. and third, it's not critical of Trump. So how are you deducing that these "lies" are meant to "make Trump look like an idiot"?
Kinda hilarious that the most credible (i.e. non-anonymous) source in this book has the least damaging story to tell. What part of that story makes Trump look bad?
And how come nobody puts their name on the really juicy stuff??
Sigh, are you really gonna make me waste my time watching this whole interview just to prove you're full of shit?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Just admit he said something like 'I sometimes had direct sources, sometimes I had second-hand ones' and save me the trouble, ok?
I'm pretty sure poopy is just 1 guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
IDK.
Poopy? Are you just one guy, or a bunch of guys?
Nope. You are responsible for your inability to leave him alone in his absurd wrongness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
She asks "How come it's mostly anonymous"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
BW: "Well the events aren't anonymous"
In other words, because a meeting happened...then anything we hear about that meeting must also be true.
She presses him to say whether or not Mattis and Kelly are his sources. And obviously, those are NOT his sources.
Do you really think that Kelly and Mattis said these things to Woodward?
If not, then ergo, you believe woodward got it secondhand. Why are secondhand anonymous sources more compelling to you than the words of two extremely high ranking and distinguished military officers?
If you do believe that Mattis and Kelly said those things to woodward, you're high.
Care to elaborate why it's "absurd wrongness"?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Is the book mostly anonymous sources, or not?
Do you think Marine Corp generals, TWO of them, badmouthed the POTUS to a journalist? Do you think that's possible, at all?
What exactly do you find "absurd"?
Wow....rock solid reporting there Woody!Quote:
SG: Are they lying?
BW: They're not telling the truth
SG: That's lying?
BW: No, but look, what’s going on here and uh, my old boss at The Washington Post, Ben Bradlee, the great editor, used to say the truth emerges. Sometimes it takes time
Do you really think that the white house just cleared out the day Obama left? Everyone just emptied their desks and carried boxes to their cars. There were tears, and hugs, and everyone promised to write??
No. There are hundreds of people in the executive branch that have been there forever, and are democrats, and loved Obama, and hate Trump. Then one day a reporter comes around asking for shitty stories.....how do you not expect every unsubstantiated rumor and toxic lie to get printed in that book?
So your argument is Cohn has a conversation alone with Trump, tells it to a friend later, who then tells it to Woodward, who makes up whatever he wants.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Then on the next page, your argument is that Omarosa walks up to the secretary and asks the secretary if she can see Trump and she says 'no, he's meeting Rob Porter'. And Omarosa tells that to Woodward and he just makes up an entire conversation between Trump and Porter
Then on the next page, Dowd has a meeting with Trump about testifying to Mueller, later tells his neighbor about it, and Woodward interviews Dowd's neighbor, finds out this meeting took place, and makes up some shit about it.
And this goes on for 450 pages.
Attachment 1028
Brilliant.
He's actually being tactful there, saying they're lying in as nice a way as possible. Not surprising that went over your head though to be fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No I don't believe Mattis and Kelly talked to Woodward directly necesssarily. But, I do believe people in the room who weren't named Omarosa heard them say those things, and then told Woodward. And then Woodward went and asked other people in the room what was said, and they told him the same thing. And once Woodward had a general consensus he wrote it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You mean there's people who wanted to talk but didn't want to face a tweetstorm and whatever else Trump can throw at them, so asked that their names not be used? That's fucking amazing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Who says they told Woodward anything? You know there were other people around who might have heard them say it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
WHAT????Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So, one anonymous source is not ok, but a consensus of anonymous sources is just fine?
Can you tell me which claims come from "an anonymous source who says..." and which claims come from "anonymous sources who say..."
You know that makes it even less likely that they said it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you want a book where someone writes 'And then Cohn told me he called the president a moron for wanting to put tariffs on everything and everyone' you're gonna be waiting a long time.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
See, a lot of people don't want the shitstorm of death threats and probably legal issues that's going to come to them if they start publicly accusing the president of being a moron.
Not sure why that's so hard to understand.
No, it makes is less likely they want it to get out themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol, no. It came out six months ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Fury-Ins.../dp/B077F4WZZY
Remember how that was supposed to be the schocking expose that took Trump down! Remember how this was going to show what an idiot he is and how little respect he gets, and how he needs words spoon fed to him by staffers who are practically asylum nurses.
Remember how everyone stopped caring after three days?
LOL
And you don't think that diminishes their credibility at all?Quote:
See, a lot of people don't want the shitstorm of death threats and probably legal issues that's going to come to them if they start publicly accusing the president of being a moron.
Remember who wrote Fire and Fury?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Basically, the difference between Fire and Fury and Omarosa's book on the one hand and Woodward's on the other, is the difference between the National Enquirer and the WP.
What?? Wolff worked for USA Today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
USA Today is serious journalism? Dint no dat.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
It's not the Enquirer. Not even close!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's circulation is higher than the WP!!
Circulation reflects integrity now?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Acceptance by an audience is a factor in considering integrity and/or credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What exactly is your beef with USA Today?
National Enquirer is credible to 1 million people then. That in itself doesn't make it objectively credible by any stretch of the imagination.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Trump rallies sell out arenas.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And then there's this...
https://thepoliticalinsider.com/maxi...ampaign-party/
Most of them are there just to watch someone lose his mind in public.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And he's still gonna get crushed in the midterms lol.
That's like saying The Daily show competes with CNN. Any similarity in their audience size is coincidental. People watch those for different reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Anyway, getting back to the issue here.
You said comparing Bob Woodward to Michael Wolff is like comparing the Washington Post to The National Enquirer.
^Do you deny saying this? BEfore we go forward, I wanna make sure that we don't get to the end of this, and you're cowering in a puddle of your own tears, and you have nothing left to debate with except a flimsy accusation of how I'm misrepresenting your views.
Did you, or did you not make that analogy?
So you are connecting Bob Woodward to his ACTUAL employer. But you're NOT connecting Wolff to his actual employer. Instead, you're connecting him to the worst example you can think of. Why is that?
Why should I think YOU are credible at this point?
^Still kinda hoping we can resolve this
Seems really fishy that whenever the demagoguery becomes indefensible...the conversation stops.
Yup, you won the argument 'cause I got bored and moved on. gg
ok, so then we agree. Woodward's book is no more significant than Wolff's. If anything ,you could say it's LESS significant, because Wolff's made more sensational claims, and had direct non-anonymous quotes from Bannon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Thanks for your valuable input.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
So which do you think is worse:
This?
Attachment 1044
Or this?
Attachment 1045
I dont understand the question
neither seems particularly relavant to anything
Circumcised Penises look like mushrooms. Toad looks like a mushroom.
Trump's penis confirmed circumcised.
Next?
poop used the word "worse"
you havent helped clarify that at all.
as usual MMM, your contribution has 0 value
Once again, you don't get to decide what I'm talking about. I do.
My commentary is there to mock the entire premise that anything about Trump's penis is relevant, or even that anything which is in the news recently is in any way criticism.
Most non-Jewish male Americans have a circumcised penis. Every one of them looks kinda like Toad.
Who cares?
Are you joking? She's a paid off porn star talking about the penis of the guy people voted to be President of the United States.
Quote:
She describes Trump’s penis as “smaller than average” but “not freakishly small”.
“He knows he has an unusual penis,” Daniels writes. “It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool …
“I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart ...
“It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had, but clearly, he didn’t share that opinion.”
Please, I implore you to tell me what could possibly be more newsworthy than that.
Well... I'm no expert on what penises look like, but I'm pretty much an expert on what mine looks like.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Doesn't everyone's penis have a bleach-white tip with red spots on it, and cute little arms it waves around.
Doesn't everyone's penis occasionally exclaim "I'm the best!" but with a particular tonality that makes it sound like "I'm possessed!"
No?
Just me and Don?
I'm trying, but you've made such a strong point that I'm left speechless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Imagine if Hillary had an affair, and the guy was telling anyone who would listen that she has saggy tits and a smelly pussy.
Just imagine the autistic screaming.
Actually, that would be boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Funny would be if Hillary had an affair with Ron Jeremy, paid him off through a shady lawyer, denied it, then trashed him on twitter. Then he wrote a book describing how she had one nipple that pointed up and one that pointed down, and a bush that went all the way to her navel. That would be funny.
You would have to imagine it 'cause that's not how people would react to your scenario; they just wouldn't care. But they would laugh at mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You've got that backwardsQuote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
https://y.yarn.co/62820f57-bced-4b62...screenshot.jpg
Wake up. If that happened, Ron Jeremy would be dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you think critically about that....you'll realize it's probably true, and that's fucked up.
Funny how Trump was supposed to be the fascist dictator seeking genocide....yet, we're two years in and somehow porn stars still have first amendment rights.
So what if Hillary Rodham Clinton fucked John Holmes while Bill was watching their newborn child; paid off John Holmes to keep it quiet during the election through a shell company set up by her lawyer, who later pleaded guilty on multiple charges, implicating her as a co-conspirator with the only reason why she isn't being indicted being that she is the sitting president. And after her lawyer gets convicted the NDA gets lifted because the payment was ruled to be illegal, and John Holmes describes Hillary in a derogatory way in his book, your theory is that republicans would get upset about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Never mind that it's yet another story you made up in order to get upset about.
Is there anything real left that you are working yourself up about, or is literally everything you're raging about fiction?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The massive media double standard favoring the left exists and is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Because you and the rest of his base elected a retarded person! One of the wettest from the position of water?! What the fuck do you want to get reported on? Literally half his camp has pleaded guilty to colluding with russians or lying under oath about their contacts with russians - meanwhile the whistleblower who reported on russian interference gets charged under the espionage act while the president himself needs to be shackled by his own base in order not to extradite US spies to russia, which he called a "great offer" and just yesterday - wants to release FBI files UNREDACTED which possibly would reveal the names of US informants, or at the very least sources and methods to russian intelligence. AT BEST he's just mentally retarded, at worst he's both mentally retarded and compromised by russia.
If you wanna have a serious discussion about this, you need to drop this mentally retarded rhetoric. First of all, "my base"...wut???? I'm a registered independent sir. Exactly who are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Second...if you're gonna keep beating the "Trump is stupid" drum....it's impossible to take you seriously. He's done WAY too many complex things to be dumb. He's not fucking dumb. Certainly nowhere near mentally retarded.
You're just too used to Presidents speaking only in rehearsed, pre-written speeches. The president using social media to make unrehearsed statements, via video, is unprecedented. That level of access, and humanization is something that some people LIKEQuote:
One of the wettest in relation to water?! What the fuck do you want to get reported on?
WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOAQuote:
Literally half his camp has pleaded guilty to colluding with russians
Hold on......
"Literally", "half his camp", "guilty to colluding". None of those statements are accurate. Not a single one.
I'm keeping score on this, and LITERALLY ZERO people have pled guilty to colluding with Russians.
That only sound bad when you say it in that extremely concise and vague way. If you explain the WHOLE circumstances around Flynn and Popadopolous....your argument falls to pieces.Quote:
or lying under oath about their contacts with russians
You can't just replace the word "criminal" with "whistleblower".Quote:
- meanwhile the whistleblower who reported on russian interference is gets charged under the espionage act
Besides, I feel like I've heard this story before when it was called "Snowden" or "Manning". Those happened before Trump. They were prosecuted too. That's what happens when you break the law. You don't get to escape prosecution just because you *think* you have a good reason for breaking the law. If you're gonna do something like that...then be prepared for the consequences. you don't get a pass just because you can win your case in the court of public opinion. Vigilantism is NOT OK. Period. You don't get to flip flop on that issue just because you don't like Trump!
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!!! Either revealing that information is bad....or it isn't??? You're calling Reality Winner a "whistleblower", but Trump is retarded??Quote:
while the president himself needs to be shackled by his own base in order not to extradite US spies to russia, which he called a "great offer" and just yesterday - wants to release FBI files UNREDACTED which possibly would reveal the names of US informants, or at the very least sources and methods to russian intelligence.
Every time you say this, you sound like more of a loser.Quote:
AT BEST he's just mentally retarded
Oh..... Is that why he bombed Russian operations in Syria? He did all that because he's compromised by Russia???Quote:
, at worst he's both mentally retarded and compromised by russia
God....where do you even get this stuff??
I mean, let's say for a minute that I could believe that Putin let Trump do that to throw folks off and misdirect. there's no way I would believe that Putin agreed to let Trump sell arms to the Ukraine. Do you have a way to explain that?
I wanna know WHO exactly has pled guilty to colluding with Russians.
Names please? So far, all I've heard is that it's multiple people comprising "half" of Trump's camp.
Surely their names are a matter of public record, no?
Who are they?
^ btw, no answer...is still an answer.
one of two things is gonna happen here...
1) Oskar posts a list of names of people who pled guilty to treason, and were all employed at one time by the Trump campaign, and the population of that list will be equal to half the number of Trump campaign and administration staff. Then I will post an admission of erroneousness.
2) Oskar doesn't answer the question because he realizes there is no answer. And he just seethes silently, burning with cognitive dissonance, because he really wanted to believe the demagoguery.
If MMM is wondering why I'm here....it's to enjoy either of those two outcomes. Either I will learn something, or I will embarrass a demagogue.
Fucking delicious.
I mean....popadopolous pled guilty to misleading the FBI.....NOT colluding with Russia.
Now the question is....WHY did he mislead the FBI. The options are:
A) He was covering for treason
B) he was desperately trying not to torpedo his career
One of those calls for the death penalty, one demands a far milder punishment.....like 14 days in jail.
What was Popadopolous's sentence again????????????
The FBI agents who interviewed Flynn admit, on record, that they don't believe that Flynn was lying about about talking to the Russain Ambassador. they truly believe he just forgot....
It seems wildly implausible that the incoming National Security Adviser would not assume that his phone conversations with Ambassadors would be recorded. Therefore, Flynn was either forgetful, or desperately hopelessly stupid by denying the conversation. Which seems more plausible?
Flynn could spend 7 figures that he doesn't have defending himself, or he could take a slap on the wrist. His career is over either way...what would you do?
Flynn's son was in a shit-ton of trouble. Then Flynn pled guilty...then Flynn's son wasn't in trouble. Coincedence??
All of this information is verifiable fact.
Oskar....can you explain to me how you can consider these facts and then conclude "treasonous collusion" rather than "witch hunt"?
That's a serious question.......what FACTS are you weighing here?
I'm about to grab an international flight. By the time I land, I'd like Oskar to answer this question.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Please read my above posts carefully, and try not to cite things that are easily refuted by the FACTS above. I fucking hate repeating myself.
"somehow" lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
If you're going to insist he's smart because he's done "complex" things "in the past" (like what, tying his own shoes?) then it will be impossible to take YOU seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Funny how you don't mention anyting "complex" he's doing now. I guess because watching hours of cable news a day isn't a "complex" task.
Face it, the guy is an idiot. His one skill is selling snake oil, and even that only works on about 1/3 people. Just 'cause you're in that group and you think you're smart (despite all the evidence on here to the contrary) doesn't mean he must be smart to have fooled you into voting for him.
If Trump is smart,then all those people like Tillerson, Cohn, Kelly, et al., who think he's a moron must be the stupid ones. Yeah, sorry, not going to fly.
Here's the kinda thing that you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Get outraged by someone not toeing your party line, insult them, accuse them of having the facts horribly wrong, then insert your alternative facts based on what you got from Fox News, "facts" which are themselves horribly distorted.
And lol at the irony of you being registered as an "independent" voter. None of your arguments show any independent thought at all; they're all just repeating lines from the Fox News republican Trump propaganda machine.
Did I say something not-factual about flynn?
Are there alternative facts youd like to cite here?
can you explain how Flynns plea is incontrovertable evidence of a sinister treasonous plot to influence an election?
Heres what you do..
demagogue.....get confronted by facts....insult me.
classy
where is the independent thougt?????
Jesus christ...even monkey says im "knocking it out of the park" here.
Do you wanna discuss anything factual? or are you just gonna keep up this lame petty game where you insist everything related to trump is the worst case scenario
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not interested in debating the individual details of Flynn's case; I've heard both sides of the story already.
My point is you act as though "your" side of the story is the only side that counts, because it has the "facts". Yet what you pretend not to realize is that your side of the story comes from a propaganda machine that routinely lies and distorts the truth. So why you imagine someone would want to "debate" "facts" with you is beyond me. Hmm, do I wanna argue with someone who gets practically all their information from a propaganda vehicle for the R party? Hmm, no what's the point.
And you're still not clever enough to use a dictionary.
so your claim is that because the leftist propaganda machines arent saying these facts...then they must not be facts?
FIRST, you have no idea where im getting my news. I will tell you that Fox is not more than a third. CNN and NBC probably another 50%, and then the rest is a hodgepodge of everything else I see and hear.
You can go read a completely unspun rendition of things if you want. Flynns plea agreement is a matter of public record
Have you read it? I have.
Seems like any reasonable person trying to comment intelligently on this would make that their FIRST source of information.
Cmon man. Do I really have to explain how to think to you??
So can you tell me exactly what is propaganda?
Did the FBI agents say that they believe flynna was beinf truthful...or not? Seems like that would be an easy thing to check.
Was his son in trouble amd now isnt? was that made up by fox news?
Does it make sense to you that popadopolous was committing treason and only got 14 days in jail??
please, explain to me how this is all part of a sinister plot to coddle the soviets
Im open minded and willong to learn. Tell me what they wont tell me on Fox News.
I fucking dare you!!
You can't seriously think I get upset about the things I talk about on here? I am probably the least serious person here. I don't take myself seriously, I don't take anything seriously. I think it's a mental illness to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
But yeah, I don't get upset about things in the news. I was simply trying to imply that if the reverse happened, if someone said those kind of things about Hillary, even if she fucked a toy boy stripper, then she would be a massive victim and I'm in no doubt you'd be on her side.
Poop thinks this is funny. I have an immature sense of humour, but I'm still stuck around the age of 15, not 10. I find dwarf boxing funny, not mushroom dicks.
It's funny, for someone who only gets a small portion of their info from Fox, how you routinely post links to Fox here, and that I can often go on youtube and find your arguments reproduced nearly word-for-word by a Fox Host and/or pundit. It's actually like having Tucker Carlson or Rudy Guiliani come and post on FTR, but with more outrage and less clarity of expression.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol, I just finished telling you I wasn't interested in discussing Flynn.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
See, most people hear "I'm not interested in X, I'm pointing something else out, Y" as "let's ignore X and discuss Y",not as "tell me everything you think you know about X".
But I guess it's not surprising your language comprehension problems match your language production problems.
You are most definitely neither of those things. That is either a blatant lie or you are seriously oblivious to who you actually are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
why are we ignoring X?
what exactly is Y?
what is your point?
also, if more than 25% of the lonks I post are from Fox...Ill happily stand corrected and acknowledge my bias.
Go do the math and let me know what the score is
Why prove what I already know?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You want to count them, do it yourself.
Maybe you'll learn something with that open mind you claim to have.
Everyone including you can see that Oskar was exaggerating. Obviously Trump isn't really mentally retarded. Obviously it isn't true half his campaign team pled guilty to collusion. What made you think he was trying to accurately relate specific facts by those words?
Your response is to pretend to take those words seriously, act outraged, and respond by trying to explain in great detail why his obvious exaggerations aren't literally true. Well thank you Professor.
And the one thing he relates that is factually accurate, that Trump wants to make intelligence files public, meaning he's either "just" an idiot or an idiot who's compromised by Russia, you respond to with some attempt to twist his words. But mostly you just attack the exaggerations and hyperbole, like those are important things to decry.
That's my point. You've lost the plot.
he claimed that half his camp has pled guilty to colluding with russia.
if it were really three people, or five, or one less than half his camp, then I can forgive the hyperbole
but its ACTUALLY zero.
thats not hyperbole, its demagoguery
im not surprised you dont know the difference
Hasn't Manafort been found guilty of colluding with Russians in the Ukrain by a state (NJ?)?
Didn't he just plea to the feds, and an interesting point in that plea was that he was colluding with Russians in the Ukraine during the March - November period he was working on Trump's campaign?
Did I misunderstand that?
I see some articles online which say it's not collusion, but something else, but ... he was taking money from Russians in Ukraine and campaigning for them, right? Is that just not "collusion" specifically? I though collusion was a loose term which kinda means "working with."
wtf, if i try to edit my post on my phone it gets deleted.??.
well fuck im not gonna type that all again. ill wait til im back at a keyboard.
MMM youre wrong about manafort.
hes charged with money laundering and bank fraud
if he took money from russians its because he was EMPLOYED by them.
he just didnt wanna pay his taxes, and thats why he is in trouble
I can un-delete any posts, but I think you can un-delete your own posts.
Do you want that post back?
I'm not getting why being employed is necessarily distinct from collusion. Is there a legal definition of collusion that applies, here, and not the colloquial, broad definition I asserted earlier?
If a French college hired you to blow up soda cans ...are you colliding with the French?
Is that a crime?
colluding, not colliding.
not even gonna try am edit
lol nice analogy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Manafort was working as the campaign manager for Trump.
He's also getting paid by Russia to do shady shit.
The most generous interpretation is that Trump didn't vet his campaign manager appropriately. Which is serious enough. And the reason he didn't vet him is that he just "hires all the best people" intuitively. In other words, he talks to people for five minutes and decides he likes them and gives them an important job. That's another theme in Woodward's book btw.
The worst interpretation is that Trump was money laundering for Russian oligarchs and Manafort was "recommended" to him by same. That would seem at least consistent with Manafort's weak ass, stuttering denials that Trump had any business dealings with Russians.
But I'm sure you've seen this before.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=923SiDdLSic&t=79s
youre confusing the word "interpretation" with "wild unfounded batshit speculation"
You're confusing the words "batshit speculation" with "follow the money".Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The funny part is there's plenty of evidence Trump was involved in money laundering for Russians that doesn't have to involve Manafort. But if even some of it does, and Manafort spills the beans to Mueller, it's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMF9H8p_y8o