vla1ne Posted February 29, 2020 Report Share Posted February 29, 2020 It's simple. Project veritas puts out actual statements. you can complain about the cuts, but how many of the videos that have been contested in court have not stood up to the test? In fact, just this week, ABC, a company that once tried to spin the veritas videos as false, took them seriously enough to suspend an employee that got veritas'd. In addition, they have won over 200 case, that's not "a little", that's a slam pretty much each and every time somebody steps to them. 200+ to 1. You need a little more than that to disprove them as a legit outlet. Unless you are also going to hold literally every single news outlet to that exact standard, which you would have to, as they have even more editors and quality checkers, meaning they should have fewer flaws overall than veritas. the bar is 1 retraction, Feel free to name even one outlet in existence with zero retractions to its' name. And then you can use only that outlet ever if your argument is that even one fail out of over 200 battles should not legitimize them. Yet they couldn't even find a single crime to pin him on for the articles. Several congressional scholars, and several lawyers, all stepped up to defend the president on this one, and the democrats even lost a senator over trying to impeach along party lines, when there was zero chance of it mattering (they needed 67 votes in the senate for it to work. they got something like 48). Drop it dude, you already got your "impeachment" and it did more harm than good for your party. he's been "impeached" along party lines. whoopee. Did you ignore the videos, and article, where an antifa protestor actively brags about causing that particular incident? i'd bet winter disaproved of the life lost, but also understands how circumstance works. And your argument had better not be "This one guy who caused a single death in what could clearly be seen as an accident, is in any way worse than these dozens of cases where this group specifically takes actions that could easily kill far more innocent people purposefully, persistently and consistently". You have one guy, who we have clear evidence pointing towards being partially provoked into the actions he took, versus people who after writing a manifesto, have actively tried to firebomb a republican building(s), And literally shot at both border patrol and republican official. Antifa, and people who sympathize with them, do not have a lower body count for lack of trying. stop trying to play that game. It's stupid, and you should already know this by now So you are ignoring the corruption of the DNC within the country to try defending a video of biden actively bragging about partaking in corruption? We sat through several YEARS of the democratic party bullshitting their way through a false investigation about a foreign power engaging in election meddling. But trump wants a single event investigated and the world's on fire for you? Get out of here with that mess. We got a 3 year russian investigation and you didn't say shit, we have literal video evidence of biden bragging about his corruption and the world's ending? No. Did you even watch the videos? Here, i timestamped it for you: 0:28 - 0:39 and 12:05-12:22 in particular. for the comey one. Comey was wrong, he tries to spin it right after, as if he were talking about an unseating coup, or claiming "nothing they were accused of was true" when the video itself clearly has him admitting that the steel dossier was a shit article and that article was the foundation of the investigation renewal several times. On top of him trying to claim there was no misconduct, when the only reason they haven't slapped the whole thing with misconduct is because, as horowitz stated, they can't tell if it was intent or stupidity. The steele report does nothing for his arguments, it takes down several of them simply by how it was used, and you claimed it had practically nothing to do with the investigation back when the investigation was going on, when the interview here tells us the exact opposite. On top of that, cohen clearly overlooked several major issues in the report on review, whenever he dealt with it, yet continues to flounder around denying even the clear comments proving his arguments wrong. Cohen is full of it, and then i know you ignored the second video if you screwed up that badly on the wiretap claim. Barr directly stated that a member(s) of the trump party was spied on, he just couldn't openly declare it as either illegal or justified. On top of that, we KNOW paul manafort, a prominent trump party leader in 2016, was wire tapped, and that he had a residence in trump tower that was tapped. Yeah, he lived in trump tower at the time of tapping. The claim that the fbi wiretapped the trump party is an allegation that is proven by the existence of paul manafort having been on trumps team while he was tapped, and the allegation of trump tower being tapped is proven by manafort having been wiretapped at his place of residence, and his place of residence (at the time) being trump tower. Now if the argument is that "they were investigating manafort over something else" or "The wiretapping wasn't illegally done" then you can try to make it, but there is no doubt that the FBI wiretapped a member of trumps campaign, in the trump tower. You can have the british bits, even if the steel dossier was from a former m16 member. even without it, Comey still fucked up, and refuses to admit it outright. No it wasn't smart. She flat out robbed him, and instead of challenging her like someone who was trying to win a fair game would, he decided to kiss up to her, but we all know the results of that now. Hilary lost, even after cheating her way to the top. Maybe this time he'll learn his lesson, but i doubt it. and slight fact you may have forgotten, but in 2016 i was actually more of a bernie fan than a trump fan. All this is coming from someone who would have wanted bernie in 2016, and vocally shit on hilarry for stealing it from him, but I moved on. Bernie had his shot, he blew it, and if he tries it again, I am telling you that he will lose. Socialism is not as popular as his supporters would have you believe, especially when (in any context) his supporters are advocating and continuously committing acts of violence. Yeah he's republican? So A republican can just say they can or will do something and you'll take them at their word so long as it hurts the trump train? Get over it. The republican who made the claim was both wrong and an idiot. There was already movement to pardon assange, why would anybody need to make a bribe at that point? And why do so by asking for something that assange has already done? Speaking of russia though, Did you forget that bernie has advocated for soviet russia several times, and neither condemns nor revokes his support of the regime. In fact, literally just 4-5 days ago, at the last debate, the dude unironically made the "This one terrible dictator did all this, but at least he got this one thing right" argument via his "Castro made the literacy rate rise" comment. other notable comments include (paraphrased) "Venezuela (2016) has a wonderful system" and "(What soviet russia had were Mandatory) bread lines are a good thing". And yes, i can keep going with quotes that bernie made. several of the horrible regimes he supporter collapsed almost right after he praised them. Trust me on this. if bernie runs, trump will either come close to, or break, reelection records. The articles of impeachment didn't EXIST during the russia investigation. You spent that entire time trying to claim that the steel dossier wasn't a key point of the investigation, and comey himself couldn't deny that the steel dossier, even after being found false, was used to renew the investigation. Go ahead, tell me again that the investigation wasn't based on a false premise, when the fisa renewal itself was based on a false premise. Tims' own opinions are not the same as the actual articles he uses. Yes, tim has bias, He clearly admits as much several times a week and tells his listeners to use other sources to keep balanced views. In fact, it's one of the things people on his own channel often say to him as well. Your argument at the start of the ti pool discussion was "Tim pool is not a legit source" as if the articles he uses are false. Now do you want to change that to something like "Tim pool has bias and that makes his sources invalid"? You clearly tried to play the game as if tim pool were not a legit source, if that is not your claim, then stop playing like me using pool vids somehow isn't a valid source. if your argument is he's biased, yeah. He is. Every channel has that. Who cares so long as the articles are legit. you don't see me reaming politico and buzzfeed like you try to do with tim, even though they're obviously far left leaning. Jose is an idiot. an absolute idiot. But let me explain, because you seem to have been infected by him. Tim has AN ENTIRE CHANNEL covering the kinds of things he talked about in that video. Videos pointing out that society has a clear bias towards women, and articles proving the assertion he made. Remember that. Jose decided to debate tims' views under the microscope, and he didn't even try to go for a hard one. He arguably picked the simplest one he could. Tim has videos using articles that contrast mens treatment in courts, for both crimes, alimony, accusations, and custody, and they all back his assertions and use legit sources. He can have the point he makes about tim not being on point when he brings women, in, but tim has video after video that backs his assertions. Hell, you can go the timcast page where you will see video after video of tim making similar arguments on several topics, using article after article in video after video. Stephen frye is an ass about it, but he is fighting using the very laws that exist on the books, to point out the flaws of those laws when it comes to mens rights in both law and society. While what tim thinks is irrelevant to that particular article, tims own views overall are just that, his own views. You can isolate points all you like, but jose seems to have ignored that people who are not him have views that he does not have. Jose also clearly doesn't understand that all you have to do to backup to tims claim is to look at the channel, which has videos going back years demonstrating the exact same thing that he's claiming in htis one. Yeah, he read a single article in that video, but he has several other articles in the same day, and dozens of others in the same week, making all manner of valid points. it's a channel, the history of videos proves the point tim makes there. to use one exemplary example: (EDIT: 3-2-2020; ...For some reason the youtube link killed several paragraphs beneath this link when it activated, but the point was essentially: Tim tells you several times in that video, that he is clearly biased, and that's yet another mark in his favor to me. He knows that his own views are skewed, but he is often willing to accept, or at the very least understand, that people have different opinions than him, and encourages other s to go out and seek those views to get a proper perspective. He may attack ideas, but he rarely attacks people, and unlike many of his ideological opponents, he never attacks people, nor does he condone attacking people. I said it better the first time, but it's been several days since then, and for the life of me i can't remember how i said it the first time.) she won popular vote huh? well, seeing as we already pointed out the flaws in the tim is not a source argument, let's go for this vid, reading the article but ignoring the tim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bQBEjkdT3 There are counties with hella unorganized voter rolls, and the argument against organizing them on the democrat side is muh racism (just try and find me any article that defends keeping the voter rolls untidied that doesn't try to tie race or sexism or some other character attack into it). There are legitimate arguments for fixing the voter registration rolls, in fact, fixing it would be the common sense thing to do if you want to streamline the process for everyone, but instead? We have counties that have more votes than eligible population, and more voters than the whole population. You do know the case was not ruled in favor of any side right? You also know that judge chupp admitted to not even reading the arguments before dismissing charges and trying to get it hushed right? and that the case is still ongoing right (in fact, funimation just tried to get and extension and ron/rial just missed her deadline in the case as well, damaging her own )? to claim that's a loss is to ignore how litigation works on all levels, and to pretend that retrials are some new concept all of a sudden, sit down before you overhype yourself yet, the case isn't over. Oh? People calling bernie a russian asset? Sounds like another candidate i heard of this one time... can't remember the name. Must not be that important. in other news, Trump is overflowing on the campaign trails, and competing with record numbers for reelection primaries, even though people don't even have to vote for him. This is just a reelection campaign. but don't worry, people aren't getting complacent, we already know the DNC cheats. Sleeping in is not how trump will get reelected. Also, bernie seems to be losing south carolina after bernie praised a cuban dictator. also, bernies has, several times alienated his own members via statements, has had a literal heart attack, and failed to condemn the near perpetual violence of his supporters. If you want to support him, fine, but he really isn't looking like a strong candidate imo. Either way, if you support him, best keep an eye out. The DNC has already shown they will cheat him to win. Unlike trump, your candidate has to fight his own party to get ahead. Comey himself, has admitted it, the steel dossier was used to renew the fisa, and on top of that, Horowitz is in the video, directly stating that the steel dossier was used heavily. The hill is straight up wrong, just like politico. My video was december 15th, your article is the 11th, the horowitz report was released on the 11th in other words, your article was likely bunked by the time my own video surfaced, and in either case, my video is direct from the horses mouth. you know what else is from horowits' mouth that your link ignored? That is horowitz's own mouth. Affirming that the fisa was gained using the steele dossier. Right from his mouth, and lied about via omission thanks to your articles. On top of that? The FBI knew page was an CIA agent, which is one of the parts that destroys the steel dossier. Once more nullifying the validity of the renewals, via omission of relevant facts to the case. Any other bunk articles you wanna bring out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 8, 2020 Report Share Posted March 8, 2020 https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/486219-judge-orders-doj-to-hand-over-unredacted-mueller-report https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/barr-mueller-report-redactions-foia.html A federal judge has accused Barr of misrepresenting the findings in the Mueller report to mislead the public, and has ordered the DOJ to hand over a full copy of the unredacted report. It's a strong rebuke of Barr's grossly dishonest behavior. To curtail the inevitable talking point, no, Judge Reggie Walton was not appointed by Clinton or Obama. He was appointed by George W. Bush. He is also a Republican, so we can avoid pretending that this is somehow a "filthy lib" who's "out to get" Barr that's behind this ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 12, 2020 Report Share Posted March 12, 2020 https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/liberal-conservative-trump-judge-mueller-redaction-case.html The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the lower court ruling that the DOJ must turn over the unredacted Mueller report, "demolishing Rao’s dissent". The DOJ has one week to appeal this decision. Looks like both Barr and Rao are failing in their efforts to shield Trump, which is really the only thing they were appointed to do. What was that about my worldview getting "blasted down"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 13 hours ago, Phantom Roxas said: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/liberal-conservative-trump-judge-mueller-redaction-case.html The DC Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the lower court ruling that the DOJ must turn over the unredacted Mueller report, "demolishing Rao’s dissent". The DOJ has one week to appeal this decision. Looks like both Barr and Rao are failing in their efforts to shield Trump, which is really the only thing they were appointed to do. What was that about my worldview getting "blasted down"? End result will determine that. They are demanding to see the unredacted report, they are asking for nothing more, and less. We have already gotten the redacted report, exactly how much traction do you really think those last few bits are gonna get you when nobody who has seen the unredacted version has changed their stance on the russia narrative regardless of them being for, or against it prior? Doesn't matter who demands it either, we have already seen that the dnc absolutely weaponizes the "russia" narrative as often as possible. Unless you are going to give all of the Russia accusations the same weight, please stop pretending this one in particular holds any. They throw these allegations at every single candidate that has threatened their hold over the past 4 years, bernie, tulsi, trump, ect. Do you want to argue the other ones are just as valid, and deserve a 4 year, hundred thousand dollar, taxpayer funded investigation? We have been here before, this trip will be no different imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 13, 2020 Report Share Posted March 13, 2020 Um, exactly why should I give "all" of the Russia accusations the same weight? As far as I can tell, the DNC has not once thrown them against Tulsi or Bernie. At worst, it's been journalists who don't like either of them grabbing onto it. The biggest person that comes to mind was Hillary Clinton saying that Gabbard has been groomed as a candidate, and since then, any reports regarding those accusations have largely focused on Gabbard suing Clinton over it. Coverage regarding Gabbard at all has since boiled down to complete bafflement that she's still in the race at all, given how she has only recent obtained her first two delegates. I'm not sure if you realize this, but it is actually possible to believe the accusations to be true with regards to Trump, and to simultaneously believe that people have been abusing the knowledge of Russia's influence in the Trump campaign by trying to spread false narratives about Sanders. Just because it is true in some cases doesn't make it true in all cases, and likewise, just because I don't believe the people who have tried to use it against Sanders doesn't mean I'm suddenly supposed to pretend it doesn't apply to Trump. It's almost like the allegations have different merits to them! So the matter at hand is how much evidence there is to them, and I believe one more than another based on the merits. You're in no position to demand that I should give "all" accusations the same weight, especially since you don't really give any explanation for why I must do that. If the allegations against Trump have more merits to them than the allegations against Sanders and Gabbard, than I'm going to give more weight to the allegations that have more merit. Sanders also acknowledged that Russia wanted to influence his campaign… and then he rejected Russia's help. That is a far cry from Trump openly inviting Russian interference. Your false equivalency falls apart simply by the different behaviors Sanders and Trump displayed. I assume you believe that inconsistency in how much weight I, among many others, give the different allegations is simply due to the people that the allegations are being made towards. If you're unwilling to accept that it's due to some allegations being stronger than the others, that's on you refusing to recognize the merits, and no fault on anyone being a hypocrite. Personally, I think that when journalists and other people on social media want to accuse people like Sanders of being a Russian asset, it hurts the legitimacy of the argument. I'm frankly more inclined to believe it applies to Trump when his business dealings and campaign officials have keep having ties to Russia, but when it comes to Sanders, all I can think of is people saying that he and his wife spent their anniversary in Russia, which is ridiculously desperate to me. That said, where I do believe the Mueller report finding that Russia supposedly helped Sanders's campaign was apparently the belief that Sanders would be an "easier" opponent for Trump to defeat. I find that to be an appropriate parallel to what I mentioned before about the Clinton campaign and/or the DNC apparently wanting to boost the Trump campaign to make him the "pied piper candidate". I'm still not entirely sure if I should take that leak to be legitimate, but if it is, we saw that trying to promote someone as the "easy" opponent backfired horribly. In any case, we have spent the majority of this thread discussing how the people associated in Trump's campaign have been implicated for various connections, and the conclusion of the Mueller report, at best, could not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice. The GOP made it clear that they refuse to acknowledge that Trump did anything wrong. For example, Nunes tried to make several pathetic deflections baselessly accusing the Democrats of conspiring with Russia, then later accused them of conspiring with Ukraine. Neither accusation worked, of course. All Nunes is capable of doing is merely thinking that if he simply makes the deflection, that's all he has to do. The idea of backing himself up when the evidence actually supports the Democrats, and not himself, doesn't seem to occur to him. It's why Michael Ellis - the guy who credited Nunes for inventing the false wiretapping narrative - was promoted to the National Security Council. Actually finding out the truth is irrelevant to the GOP. When Democrats bring evidence, they just deflect. They can't actually defend Trump, and, again, all we saw in the Senate during the impeachment inquiry was Senators who either walked out, tried to spin the focus on outing the whistleblower instead of Trump's actions, and a few going as far as to admit that what Trump did was in fact wrong, but not wanting to punish him for it. Realistically speaking, I don't expect this to do much to Trump by now. Most people have made up their minds about how this affects Trump. Right now, the figure at the forefront of this particular matter is Barr. If nothing else, what happens next will most likely effect him. Rao may have been outnumbered 2-1 in her dissent, but that is the extent of her involvement here. However the DOJ responds, I don't particularly expect it to end well for Barr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted March 14, 2020 Report Share Posted March 14, 2020 Horowitz's made it pretty clear the WT wasn't fake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 14, 2020 Report Share Posted March 14, 2020 Horowitz only corroborated the application against Carter Page. He also debunked the claims that there was any surveillance of Paul Manafort or Trump Tower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 On 3/13/2020 at 11:14 AM, Phantom Roxas said: ...The media was the main force pushing the trump-russia narrative after hillary hyped it. The politicians were just the circle source hype-men. We already saw they didn't even have enough info to push the russia narrative in the first place, if they did, then they would have been able to toss out the steel dossier by the first fisa renewal. So considering politicians clearly didn't have insider information holding up their narrative, where do you think they got their narrative from? They read and watched the media circlejerk it till pure garbage came out. Bernie has ample quotes and relationships backing the narrative that he has russian ties. i give them the same credence as the trump quotes, for the same reasons, and the only reason they aren't going harder on tulsi is because she is politically a nonentity. False narratives? Roxas, please explain to me how bernie supporting communist actions, honeymooning in communist regimes, and refusing to condemn such regimes until, and occasionally even after, they collapsed, (remember venezuela, the castro literacy, or the breadlines comments?) is in any way not as good of an argument as anything they used against trump? Different behaviors alright. Bet money you'd swallow just about anything spit out about trump, but bernie is clearly either untouchable, or requires double the level of accusations for you. not a single person on the trump campaign was hit with a single thing on the 2016 election. they dealt with russia at other times, for other reasons. nothing about the 2016 election counted as anything you could call interference. clinton has money from china and ukraine relating to her campaign, a vastly higher level of interaction than literally anything on the 2016 trump election. considering bernie became a millionaire around the same time, and held less of a grudge towards hillary than trump, even though trump at least played the game fair (especially relating to the bernie V. hillary portion, and exponentially in comparison to the DNC regarding anything bernie). gets the noggin joggin man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 The accusations against Trump make more sense than the accusations against Sanders. There's really no deeper reason than that, but you can keep yourself occupied with your strawman argument. As I already said before, a honeymoon is a laughably pathetic thing to try to pin Bernie for. As far as I understand, Venezuela is the only example people seem to think of to fearmonger about socialism, while at the same time, conveniently disregarding that Venezuela's collapse isn't as simple as "socialism bad". No one is saying that Sanders is untouchable, nor does there need to be some greater threshold in his case. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-sanders-compilation-video/partly-false-claim-video-shows-bernie-sanders-making-remarks-he-wouldnt-wish-the-public-to-see-idUSKBN20Q281 Spare me your clutched pearls about the breadlines. Bernie was juxtaposing the breadlines against the alternative, where people are literally starving to death. You can quote Sanders all you like, but given that you conveniently ignore the context, I don't think you'll accomplish anything. I'm not sure how I'm supposed to think it's a bad thing that Sanders would prefer if people had access to food over starving to death. You fail to "give them the same credence as the the Trump quotes" when you blatantly hold Sanders in contempt, while jumping through hoops to excuse Trump, demanding evidence of his guilt, then in the very next breath making up reasons for why the evidence provided magically doesn't count. Just as you claim that I'm holding Trump and Sanders to different standards, you are doing the same thing, but you favor Trump. The people involved in the Trump campaign still getting hit for their crimes isn't exactly the exoneration you keep pretending it is. Sure, dozens of people associated with the Trump campaign were convicted as a direct result of the Mueller probe... but at least they weren't all about collusion! Like, really? That is the distinction we have to make? That all the convictions are acceptable because you can just say they were just from something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 Look roxas, the same people saying Russia wants to help trump, said the same about Russia and sanders if you wanna lynch our guy, you're in the pot too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 15, 2020 Report Share Posted March 15, 2020 And I already addressed that. Trump welcomed Russia's help, and when Sanders was briefed on it, he flat-out condemned Russia for it. I'm not sure if you realize, but one guy embracing help is different from another guy rejecting it. Maybe try harder with the false equivalence. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/new-york-times-finds-scandal-in-bernie-sanders-cooperation-with-ronald-reagans-soviet-peace-plan.html Honestly, this is kind of hilarious in how it rips apart the New York Times for attempting to make this scandal. https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2018/07/19/why-did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-the-magnitsky-act/ This article is a familiar one. It's from 2018, but it address the Magnitsky Act. That's a low-hanging fruit that I'm surprised neither of you went for. It's fine that you didn't, because the article highlights why it's such a weak talking point. When the allegations against Trump are substantive, and the allegations against Sanders are just being used by you and vla1ne as a tu quoque argument, or people who want to feel vindicated for being petty about "Bernie Bros" since 2016, I'm really not going to take the latter seriously. I think the DNC is terrible, and I believe they have learned absolutely nothing from 2016. Clinton bought her way into the nomination, and now they're blatantly trying to install Biden, not because Biden would actually be a competent president, but because he's the closest thing to a frontrunner who isn't Bernie. And yet, despite my gripes with them, I don't think the DNC has actually tried to hold Russia against Bernie? Maybe not to any significant degree, but certainly not as much as they hold it against Trump. It's almost like, even within liberal circles, there's a divide between whether people take #BernieIsARussianAsset seriously or not. Personally, I think that it devalues more legitimate arguments of Russian influence. It's a "boy who cried wolf" to me. The more you keep trying to paint him or anyone else as a Russian asset, people will be less inclined to believe you in times when it's actually true about someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted March 16, 2020 Report Share Posted March 16, 2020 On 3/15/2020 at 11:00 AM, Phantom Roxas said: Spare me your clutched pearls about the breadlines. Bernie was juxtaposing the breadlines against the alternative, where people are literally starving to death. ...USSR breadlines, against the alternative, of which i am assuming you mean the united states, where even our homeless are often obese... This one i had to highlight, it is an example of a comment that is almost fractally wrong. There is literally nowhere in the united states where you will die of hunger faster than people did in the USSR, breadlines or not. Bernie was wrong, regardless of the context you wish to frame it within. Aside from that: What you seem to not realize is that one of them made a name for themselves grandstanding, but has had zero ties to russia outside of real estate development. The other honeymooned in russia shortly after the cold war, near the height of tensions between the two countries, on top of that, the dude has attended several festive occasions hosted by dictators, all the while praising their regimes, and has yet to revoke the vast majority of those socialist/communist endorsements. Seriously, try and find any times bernie condemned the ussr when questioned on it. He squirms out of the question like a mental contortionist. What substance? there is still have nothing on the trump-russia narrative aside from a throwaway line that was literally said in the middle of a rally. What you are attempting to conflate, is a joking action from a known embellisher, to high treason. Your comparison is akin to the time john oliver told donald trump to run for president. The literal best argument you have, is akin to any number of throwaway joke lines that i could point to and say "This guy said X, clearly he meant harm by it". The level of argument against trump is on the same level as the arguments against bernie, the difference is that you swallow one, while choking on the one dedicated to your chosen candidate. In case you didn't get the memo, neither i nor winter gives credence to the "russian agent" argument, for any of the current candidates. We are not saying "russia didn't do X for trump, but they're doing it for bernie/tulsi" we are saying "If you honestly believe Russia did X for trump, then the level of evidence is on par for bernie same as trump, so what is your excuse for excusing one over the other?" You, so far, have used the argument that politicians aren't going after bernie, and as i pointed out, that's a load of bull as an argument. but let me elaborate on it: 1)The media was running solo with the "trump is a russian asset" line as well, until he won, and then they all dogpiled the nothingburger. Bernie? He's running on socialism, the least popular platform of all 3 candidates, all the while getting his ass kicked by a literal dementia patient. Why would they need to dogpile him right now when trump is clearly the bigger target? 2)The DNC had no control over trump, trump ran as a republican, so the DNC cound not slap him out of the race, even though he was a threat to their narrative, the best they could do was get the media to run interference, and trump, thanks to years of old school shitposting, made them his faithful advertisers for free. you want further evidence of that? look at the third "russian agent" tulsi gabbard 3)The DNC is doing to gabbard, what they wish they could have done to trump, she is a legitimate threat to their power, and as such, they are shifting the rules to keep her both down in the polls, and out f the debates, I'm not even a tulsi fan, and i can see that if she were on stage with the heart attack socialist and the dementia puppet, she would more than likely take every delegate from the time she stepped on stage, to the rest of the race. bernies' time is up, that's the only reason why they play fair with him now. Tulsi? she would destroy all of their runners the way she did warren, and so they slapped her off the stage. Get it through your head. Bernie is done, and that is the only reason the politicians are not stomping on his name. tulsi has been quieted, because she ran within the party that has no qualms about throwing her off the stage for speaking the truth about them. When trump ran as a republican, it was because he already knew the democrats' mask was slipping. the right has its' nutjobs, but they at least let you fall on your own merits for the most part, fuck them still for screwing over ron paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 17, 2020 Report Share Posted March 17, 2020 The bread lines comments were about Nicaragua. If you want to insist he was somehow praising the USSR there, that is a desperate reach. You couldn't even get the country right. "Zero ties to Russia outside of real estate development" Oh, so he does have ties to Russia, then. Real estate development isn't some minor detail, especially when he's been trying to push for business there for the past thirty years. https://www.vox.com/2019/4/22/18511864/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism-cnn-town-hall “Is it your assumption that I believed in authoritarian communism that was in the Soviet Union? I haven’t, and I opposed it.” Explain to me how he tried to squirm out of answering that question. That seems a pretty damn definitive answer. While you're busy trying to blame Sanders for praising dictators, I assume you're willing to hold Trump to the same standard? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/connections-trump-putin-russia-ties-chart-flynn-page-manafort-sessions-214868 I'll be honest, I hate the format here because, while I understand that is useful for laying out the connections between the Trump campaign and his officials, the structure of it just reminds me of the Always Sunny meme. At best, I would only recommend that as an example, rather than some final word on the statements. There is also this article, though it is a significantly long read. The thing is, you believe the evidence against Trump has as much merit as the evidence against Sanders. Once again, I remind you that the evidence against Trump is much stronger than the evidence against Sanders. My "excuse" for favoring one over the other still comes down to the strength of the evidence. As it stands, you still have not actually deconstructed the evidence against Trump, nor have you bolstered the evidence against Sanders to put it on the level of Sanders. You are hoping to make a false equivalence believe the two, but since you have failed to actually prove why the respective allegations are equal in merit, I have no reason to change my position. The DNC doesn't even need to try with Tulsi Gabbard. She barely got two delegates, and if she were on the debate stage, she might get a handful more, but certainly not much that she would be "more than likely take every delegate". I have no idea how you think she was in any way responsible for destroying Warren. Sanders, Biden, and Bloomberg did significantly more. While I think the DNC did screw with earlier candidates, we are at a point in the race where Sanders and Biden are viable options. The rising thresholds are not somehow designed to get her off the stage. She is just incapable of becoming the nominee, and she's trying to paint herself as the victim. When Sanders has 745 delegates, and Gabbard only has two, I'm more likely to believe that she's not a viable candidate, not that the DNC is screwing her over. You were claiming that the DNC was throwing these allegations at Bernie. When I pointed out that they aren't, you suddenly changed your position to how they don't need to. You wanted to call bull on my argument, except in doing so, you ended up proving my point. You even said "the only reason they aren't going harder on tulsi is because she is politically a nonentity", so I'm surprised you're suddenly shifted to pretending that they've totally gone harder on her. She qualified before, and when the DNC raised the threshold, they raised them by such a small degree that, if you weren't meeting that criteria, it's because you're not a viable candidate. This race also had a ridiculous amount of candidates from the outset, so it needed to be culled. Gabbard has just been far too stubborn to drop out, and if you think she "more than likely take every delegate from the time she stepped on stage", you don't seem to realize that she's not on the stage because she's already shown that she can't do that. I quoted you again because, as I've pointed out, you seemed to forget your own arguments, and I wanted to be sure that you remember what you were saying. Trump changed his party five times, ending up as a Republican in 2012. I don't believe that he ran as a Republican due to any failings on the Democrats' part. Not saying that they didn't have those failings, just saying that they didn't make a difference to his candidacy. Or maybe what he - and by extension, you - saw as failings are different from what I see as failings. Once again, you've proven that, despite your false claims of being a ""centrist"", you're much more of a right-wing nutjob. How the hell can you possibly believe that the right simply "let you fall on your own merits", rather than seeing them as actively malicious in screwing people over? The GOP is now obsessively devoted to Trump, and McConnell has gleefully boasted about being the "grim reaper". It isn't about Democrats shoving partisan bills through the House. I'm not going to pretend that they don't, but when McConnell blocks bills regardless of whether they are bipartisan or simply favored by Democrats, the person you should blame is him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted March 21, 2020 Report Share Posted March 21, 2020 I put off responding to this post for too long, so I'm going to address it now. Due to the sheer length of it, and the various non-sequitirs, I’ll try to get some closure on each point as best I can. If I skipped anything, it’s because the posts in between have largely covered the same points, or because some topics were spread out across the post, and I'm trying to reconcile those. ABC was in the wrong for acting on that Veritas video. But 200 cases? Yeah, I’m going to need some citation on that one. Despite your attempts to deflect by pointing fingers at everybody else instead of accepting even the slightest criticism, I am under no obligation to only follow whatever outlet you decide I’m allowed to use. I can criticize your choice to use Veritas, and I can say that Veritas has been discredited, but I am not saying you are not allowed to use Veritas. I am saying that, given their history, I take their videos with a grain of salt unless other sources can corroborate them. It’s almost like only using one or two sources is a stupid idea! They couldn’t find a single crime to pin on Trump for the articles? Strange, then, that they found two: Abuse of power, and obstruction of justice. Democrats losing one member to the Republican party is certainly harmful, I suppose, in the barest minimum sense of the term. And with how the Republicans in the Senate showed how utterly scared they are of raising their hand against Trump, I’d say it harmed them just as much, since Susan Collins is at risk of losing her suit, and she's incapable of realizing why. If this did harm Democrats in the long term, it was because it further demonstrated how badly we need to replace Pelosi, though that’s more on her for holding the party back when they should have impeached Trump much sooner than they did. All the success from the House Democrats in the impeachment inquiry was in spite of Pelosi, not because of her. Winter approved of James Fields murdering Heather Heyer. In fact, to quote Winter, “the only thing I regret is he only ran over 1 of the rats, and that none of the rats put him down. World would be better that way.” You can’t “bet” that Winter somehow disapproved of the life lost after you already saw firsthand that he approved, as well as advocated for more lives to be lost. But don’t worry, my argument isn’t that it was “clearly an accident.” My argument is that Fields plead guilty and was convicted because he was irrefutably proven to have acted with malicious intent. You can try to excuse him all you want, but we had a trial about this, and every single defense you made for him in 2018 was defeated, especially the nonsense about him somehow being “provoked”. So yes, I’m going to play that game, because the law and his own plea completely backed up my argument, and defeated yours. Pretending that your argument somehow still has any chance of holding up is completely delusional. He received his second life sentence the day after that firebomb attack. I’ve got no qualms about disavowing the firebomber, but I see that it’s difficult for you to concede that you were proven wrong about Fields. As I recall, I did say a lot about the investigation against Trump. Thankfully, nobody withheld aid to a foreign country on the condition that Trump should be investigated. Remember that you defended Trump because “the literal US policy is to withhold aid until corruption has been shown to not be an issue, and even ignoring that policy at other times, is not sufficient justification for claiming adhering to it is wrong here”. Biden followed policy as well, so it would not be sufficient justification for claiming he was “actively bragging about partaking in corruption”. Since Trump and Biden both withheld money to Ukraine unless they got what they wanted, I wonder if you’re willing to either condemn them both, and therefore agree that an investigation against Trump was just as necessary as an investigation against Biden, or if you think that they were both in the right for trying to remove corruption. However, that's only comparing the impeachment inquiry to its catalyst. Trying to equate the Mueller probe with Biden joining in on the push to fire Shokin is a false equivalence, but I suspect you know that. After all, your strategy continues to be desperate bids for deflection. I linked this article before, but it bears repeating that we actually know that neither Manafort nor Trump Tower wiretapped. Horowitz specifically debunked both, which I believe is where the confusion between us is coming from. You seem to think that he somehow proved every single accusation, while my mistake was believing that he had disproven all of them. As it turned out, he proved some, and debunked others, so it’s a mix that both supports and debunks different claims that we believed. All you have is Carter Page. Barr disagreeing with the Horowitz report doesn't mean that it happened. As has been established, he was only hired to play defense for Trump, and prove his conspiracy theories right. If Horowitz couldn't find evidence, and Barr simply disagrees, insisting it still totally happened, then that isn't enough for me, especially when Horowitz then pushed back against Barr. From what it looks like, Horowitz's job was to uncover evidence of something, and Barr is unhappy that he didn't uncover enough of what Trump believed to be true. You’re right that the articles of impeachment didn’t exist during the Russia investigation. That’s what made this statement so incredibly moronic. On 2/19/2020 at 4:47 PM, vla1ne said: each and every cause of the impeachment article was confirmed to have been circle sourced from the debunked steel dossier. I'm willing to concede that the Steele dossier was at the heart of the investigation against Carter Page. However, that has to be some kind of typo that you somehow missed. The Steele dossier still had nothing to do with the articles of impeachment, despite how much Nunes and his ilk kept trying to deflect the impeachment inquiries back on that. Can't help but notice like that the strategy of making incoherent deflections onto the left feels strangely familiar… In any case, Horowitz still found that the investigation was justified. And no, the difference in dates does not make it more or less legitimate. You need to actually show that it was debunked. If you need to consolidate scenarios, and suggest that evidence of one somehow proves or disproves a second scenario. The renewals' errors don't somehow retroactively invalidate why the investigation was first opened. Pointing out that Rohrabacher is Republican seems more relevant than you trying to emphasize that he's from California, as if that somehow made a difference. It seems like the offer was made before Assange formally denied it. A movement to pardon Assange is separate from someone having the authority to do so, but it doesn't guarantee that Trump would feel any obligation to actually grant that pardon. The bribe here would actually give Trump the incentive. That said, I can agree that Rohrabacher is an idiot who loves conspiracy theories, and I can believe that it was him acting on his own, and none of this actually came back to Trump himself. However, I love how you took the opportunity to once again deflect towards Bernie, so you're still proving my point about how obsessed you are with trying to deflect even the smallest criticism against Trump onto whoever you can. But I already addressed the bulk of that argument in my previous posts, so I'll move on to the next point. I shared Jose’s videos because I believe he made some strong arguments. Meanwhile, you are consistently parroting Tim’s talking points, so it’s ironic that you’re claiming I’m the one “infected”. Jose went out of his way to take Tim up on his offer to look through the channel. He observed trends, then cited examples. Pretending that he somehow failed to do what you’re suggesting is worthless, because Jose’s videos were specifically about him going through Tim’s channel in the first place. In trying to condemn Jose because you believe he “seems to have ignored that people who are not him have views that he does not have”, you displayed the difficulty you have in accepting that other people have views that you don’t have. Maybe something happened in the past month, but Tim’s video about the popular vote is unavailable. If it’s still visible on your end, then I’m not sure what’s going on. Either way, your subsequent argument does nothing to disprove that Clinton won the popular vote. Just to make sure you understand, I am responding to what you wrote, and making no judgment on Tim’s video. Judging by this article, and your own comments, I assume that you’re referring to how a 2012 NPR study was misrepresented. If so, then your argument failed, and my earlier point remains valid. For someone who likes to keep bragging about supposedly debunking my arguments, you keep repeating arguments that were debunked over two or three years ago. All of Vic’s claims were dismissed, and he has to pay each of the defendants for their legal expenses. Even at a reduced amount, Vic decisively lost the case, which is an outcome that is very much in the defendants’ favor. Chupp didn’t admit to any of what you claimed, however; he simply told Beard that he already had something that Beard was trying to submit. The defendants all received their extensions, with Toye and Rial explaining that they previously missed that deadline because they intend to file their cross-appeal and response brief simultaneously. By no means does that harm their case. However, I’m surprised that you don’t know that an appeal is not a retrial. I’m happy to get hyped about how the appeal will turn out, but if you think I shouldn’t be, then I would advise against claiming that I ignored how litigation works if you were just going to immediately pivot to displaying your own ignorance of the process. Just like with James Fields, the court backed up my side, and your guy lost. Sorry, but just because neither of those cases went the way you wanted them to doesn't mean no one is allowed to celebrate the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted March 22, 2020 Report Share Posted March 22, 2020 On 3/21/2020 at 12:04 PM, Phantom Roxas said: To the first response, ok, that's my bad. for some reason i though he was discussing USSR who also had bread lines around the same time. in either case, the point still stands though, There is literally nowhere in the united states where you will die of hunger faster than people did in USSR nicaragua, breadlines or not. I was terribly wrong about the location, and i need to work to not make that mistake again, but the overall point remains the same as it ever was. Trump runs business in real estate, calling that acceptable evidence of russian collusion would be like arresting the starbucks CEO for opening a starbucks in russa. Not good enough. not bad, he learned to pull the disavow card. doesn't change much about the point though Bernie, and every other wannabe socialist gives the same responses, "That wasn't real socialism" or "I oppose that form of socialism, mine will be different" and we have seen, time and again, that each and every one of their proposed "variants" collapses, for all the same reasons. aka, stifling innovation, spending money that they do not have, disincentivising people from becoming doctors, stifling the free market via the astronomical level of taxations required to float their policies, the list goes on. There is zero reason that bernies plan will be any different. and we see time and again as well, how bernie advocates similar plans to other regimes that collapse. For a proper response, buttigieg puts it the simplest: "Of course literacy is a good thing, but why are we spotlighting the literacy programs of a brutal dictator instead of being unambiguous in our condemnation about the way he was treating his own people?". this is the fundamental flaw of bernie. he can say all he wants that he doesn't support the regime, but he continuously tries to look at the rose colored glasses version of them. We have food kitchens in america that serve more, and better food than any "breadlines" in Nicaragua, we have literacy programs in america that don't involve a gun to the heads of your loved ones, the waypuerto rico does, or forced propoganda. This is bernies flaw, we already have most, if not all of those good aspects, without the extreme poverty. “I happen to believe that in the United States, there is something fundamentally wrong when we have three families owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society.” is exactly how we slide down the slippery slope. The wealth inequality in america is nothing compared to the rest of the world. look at venezuela if you want to see a true wage gap. In america, some win, and some lose, but the chance to break even, or even just float just beneath, to come up for air now and again, is orders of magnitude higher than it would be under his policies. Remind me again how he pays for free healthcare, free college, free whatever else he's proposing, on top of all that we have now? and once we see that., how would he keep any business remaining in america if not by seizing them means of production the way so many before him have? The evidence against trump has already failed beyond anything i would need to say against it. Remember that 3 year long investigation following everything they could get their hands on? Tell me how that falling flat, counts as anything other than a resounding failure overall? They spent years, not weeks, not months, years, going over everything they could find, every trail they could follow, and not only did it still flop, they even had to use a debunked report to bolster it as they floated in that sea of abject failure. They had all the same links you seem to want to use, information well beyond that, al the time they could ask for, and they still couldn't do it. Put bernie through that, same rigor, 3 years and several million dollars worth of investigation, and then you can talk to me about who has less compelling information. That's my bad, i meant kamala harris, she's been dead so long i typed warren by accident. tulsi absolutely demolished kamala, and you can note a clear shift in the way they handled her after that during the debates, to save warrens ass. Bernie is already losing to biden, so his mesage is clearly not doing the trick, even on the left, tulsi, checks the woman, non-white, and non socialist boxes of identity politics, she has the support of more people in the center than bernie does, and the main thing preventing her from taking them both by storm is name recognition, which she would have gained had she been allowed to step on the stage where it would have been just the 3 of them. that is ample reason to suspect that she would do better than either one in the polls had she made it to the last staged debate between the two of them. Put tulsi up against biden, who is clearly losing his marbles, and tulsi would have started draining his support from that point on, and had way better odds outside of the left than biden will get in the upcoming election. It's not even a reach, it's just factoring in everything i know at the moment about the three, and estimating how that would play out. When i say "more than likely take every delegate from the time she stepped on stage" it is an exaggeration. akin to saying "X is the greatest thing ever", or "T will destroy J in the election". it's an apt summary, but not a concrete statement. When i say it, i mean that she would take a large number once she starts actually focusing, which she has not been doing since she started that little spat with hillary. either way, she's out now, and sold out to biden, who probably won't even remember her name at this point. So the question is moot. The democrat party (moreso than the republican party) has been stabbing their candidates in the back rather hard as of late. Not that the republicans don't, we both know they can, and do, but if given the choice between the two, republican party was the obvious one of the two. You have seen this several times now, yet somehow still can't believe it?If you want to run on an established, powerful platform, and not get screwed over by said platform, then going by current history, republicans have not been shown this, so much as the democrats have. unless you're saying bernie would have lost in 2016 had hillary not robbed him? Call me what you like, but the results speak for themselves. the GOP laughed at trump, and was very uncertain at the onset, with few people in the upper echelons of the party liking him. They still didn't try to rip him out the way DNC has done with several of their candidates, and it took time for them to get to where they are now, gleefully boasting about being the grim reapers. I would know, i've watched them go from skeptical and reluctant about trump, to being full blown trump supporters (myself developing along the same path). Of course i blame McConnell when he screws up, that doesn't mean i don't still get to congratulate him when he does the right thing. that's called balance, work on it my guy. onto the second response though:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEUxj8b7gQaaCfqDSFD7T5EU4ToM8GgG1 that's a playlist, from veritas themselves, with videos dating back several years. all of which feature retractions, with several having multiple lawsuits in them. That's 148 videos, they claim over 300 retractions, but i didn't see that many. I did see well over 148 BTFO's though. be they frivolous lawsuits against them, or full salvos, they just keep winning. But i doubt that's the full list, so here's their facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pg/ProjectVeritas/videos/?ref=page_internal I don't have a facebook, so i have difficulty navigating, but i've seen them listing several retractions in the parts i could see. if you've got a facebook i'd guess you could look even deeper. but there ya go. a playlist and their own page listing retraction #306 near the top. Assuming they have even more than even i thought, then the point is further buffed. Abuse of power? When? They called it abuse of power, but fail to prove how doing the exact thing that a president has the authority to do (whitholding aid pending investigation into corruption) counts as abuse. trump has had Giuliani looking into the corruption in ukraine since 2018, well before election season, then we see the biden video coming out, and we see a request into the context of that corruption. i'm gonna need an actual list of power abuses, not vague ones either. what powers did he use that presidents don't have, or aren't allowed to use in the way trump did? on top of that, ukraine government itself has already come out stating they didn't even know aid was being withheld. If we're claiming abuse of power is a legit claim under that scope, then democrats using the impeachment process itself could be flipped back to them as an abuse of power claim, considering we have ample evidence that they have been seeking any grounds they could do push it forwards since 2016. If trump doing what he has the authority to do is fair game, i can make any number of arguments about how democrats that pushed impeachment were abusing their powers. On top of that? Hunter readily admits he got the position he had on the board because of joe. Top of that? We know that trump has asked to have biden looked into well before biden jumped into the race, destroying the political rival narrative (no, potential future rival is not a good argument, he was not in the race, if we're going by that context, any dem with a half decent reason to run could fall under that umbrella). On top of that? The one republican you got to swap sides (romney) had ties to that very same board that trump wanted investigated. Yeah, abuse is not a cannon they should be trying to point anywhere, because the backlash would rip their whole narrative a new one. As far as obstruction, No. Just no. They literally blocked the republicans from entering over 50 hours worth of interviews, violated speaking rules, and manipulated the narrative several times during said meetings, making it seem as if trump (who had no way of influencing those meetings without the inside democrats directly interfering to make it happen) had been intimidating witnesses as the closed door investigation was underway. That's just one more cannon that would hit them leagues harder than they could ever use it in the same context. their idea of obstruction is about as solid as a paper bottle, and can be discarded just as easily. but best part? https://townhall.com/tipsheet/timothymeads/2019/09/25/dems-sent-letter-to-ukraine-asking-for-investigation-to-trump-n2553705 yeah, the whole of this impeachment was running on something that (if we're playing by their rules) they themselves ought to be answering for. Pelosi was the only smart one in your party, she knew it was going to be a useless motion that would have zero notable effect. Lo and behold, she was right, impeachment was completely hollow, and only served to add another notch on trumps belt. Too bad she was too worried about losing her footing to put her damn foot down. You want advice on what would have been better? Have congress act on a motion to condemn his actions as a whole instead of a full blown impeachment. They could have seen several dozen republicans switch over in solidarity, saving face, making the isssue less partisan, and damaging his name, while gaining new supporters for taking a rational step instead of blowing the parties own feet off. impeachment would still have been on the table, they wouldn't have blown their load early, and we might have seen a more effective narrative out of it. but no, they fell right into the hole. Well then, can't say i speak for winter on that topic then, seeing as we are clearly coming from two different places. That said, fields pleading was because his attorney was absolute garbage. I have pointed out several times over, just how easily he could have killed vastly more people if this was truly an argument of intent. The dude clearly was not aiming to murder masses of people, and the fact that he barely hospitalized anyone, but a fat chick, in a car that was clearly capable of swiftly reaching speeds capable of killing several dozen people, alongside the evidence from the very peoples mouths, about provoking him as he drove, proves that he got hit by the kangaroo court. His malice came after the fact, not before. the cops testimony was that he was completely shaken, and heavily apologetic, it was only after the magnitude of events settled in, and the long road of bullshit ahead clear, that he became pissed at his fate, as anyone would be, when an accident is framed as a straight up malicious murder. Another lawyer took the case on his blog and showed step by step how shitty his actual lawyer was, proving several times above what would constitute a reasonable defense, just how fields was innocent of malicious intent. He was, at worst (and undeniably), guilty of manslaughter, but not malicious murder. Sit that shit down. Not once have i said he deserves no jail time, only that the time he got was absurd beyond reason under the context. Of course he deserves jailtime, of course he cannot be let off easily, but the current crime, and punishment given, does not fit the scenario, and you seem incapable of seeing that. Up until that point in time, there were no indications that horowitz hadn't been wiretapped, I fell for that one on my own. Point still stands imo that there is really nothing substantive to the trump investigation, but yeah, that's still my bad. The context itself will give you the answer to that one. For the majority of that comment i was discussing the impeachment/ukraine debacle, thus, in that part, While I meant russia investigation documents, the impeachment articles were in my head, and caused me to blink that small bit out. Or at least that's what i'd infer from the comment itself, as you can see that is the only part of my comment that even does anything remotely like that. Look at the comment surrounding the comment and you will notice that the paragraph in question is about the russia investigation, but is preceded by a comment about the ukraine/impeachment debacle. Not sure why that's confusing to you, but that's likely how that went down in my head, going by what i typed. Indeed, the investigation can be found to be warranted, but for 3 years they searched, weeks worth of questions, millions of dollars, several countries spanned, every hole peeped into, and they found nothing to nail the guy. That's as good of a vindication as anybody's gonna get. Nah, california republican officials are a rarer breed. They live in one of the bluest states, and are often as RINO, as democracts in the reddest states are DINO. It's a throwaway point, but a legit one. Assange denied it in 2016, at the time of releasing it, well before this entire debacle came into play. By this point in time (2020), we already know assanges stance on the topic, and rohrabacher attempting to play the "do this and be free" card when we already knew assanges position all the way back in 2016, is even more of a throwaway than him being californian. Asking him to say it again is an irrelevant condition because unless he has stated that his statement means anything else, which he has not, then it could reasonably be assumed to never have changed, to this day. He went through, and decided the person he's reviewing is a grifter, despite pointed evidence to the opposite. Yeah, he's either an idiot or stupidly stubborn. I could pull up any number of videos from tim proving the opposite of what jose claims, that is the point. He goes in and tries to play the "this guy is a dishonest hack" card, despite having dozens of videos from tim that are clearly and enthusiastically encouraging his supporters to get a balanced news diet. Tim already admits his biases, and has been fired on by both sides for not sitting far enough on one side or the other. Far as i can see, jose is yet another one of those people, and yeah, tim screws up at times, but several videos a day, six to seven days a week, is one hell of a track record. calling him an illegitimate source is wrong, regardless of how you feel about him putting away the left side blinders. he's earned his stripes both out in the field, and behind the computer, you don't have to like it, but that much experience deserves at least milquetoast respect. The link there was actually about a recent (or at least recent back then) push, to clean up voter rolls, and an outcry on the left against it for resons such as "it is anti black because they can't DMV", and othr common hits. tim was on of the few people covering the story at the time, and the article itself was pretty good. video's gone though, and i'm not trying to wade back through the internet to find the links into it. considering corona is currently everywhere in the media, that argument is unlikely to have progressed. As i said before. Judge chupp, the person in charge of the case, not only admitted to not reading the documents provided (arguably the largest FUBAR a judge can cause within a case), but was agressive towards both parties because they had to go through the papers to find the arguments that he himself should have read through, adding to the time of the case. Ty should have been better prepped as well, but considering chupp never read the documents presented, you can see how Ty has been annoyed at the outcome, and ready to appeal as many cases as he could. If you truly want to talk mignongia, you will have to wait, because they are already reforming the entirety of the case, and are likely to suffer further delays from the outbreak. Trust me on this one though, they already have ample evidence of interference in the case, tweets proving several times over that their main goal is to ruin the life of the person they are accusing, testimony from conventions that monica has attempted to get them shut down vics appearances, and proof that they are running on the "rules for thee, but not for me" narrative while they violate contracts that they made in advance over this case. This is one you may want to step back on. The fields case was clearly going towards the kangaroo court, we all know he did it, the argument was (and remains) motive. The frame of that was "female dies in car attack of a racist male driver". The narrative was gonna eat him alive before the case ever began, and nobody doubted as much. People came out the woodworks for that one because it was in the early days of the "race card" overclock season. The vic case is a separate beast entirely. We have zero proof of vic doing anything he was accused of, several proven false narratives against him, and several different types of proof that they were out to destroy everything he was working to build up. You don't have to like it, but this case does not end at dismissal, yeah people like marchi got out free, but the biggest targets are still on the board, and those are the main ones he was after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted April 1, 2020 Report Share Posted April 1, 2020 I agree that it’s unlikely for people in the United States to die at a faster rate than in Nicaragua. Good thing Bernie didn’t mention it, but that’s par for the course with you. You have a habit of inventing an argument, then assigning it to a person, as if refuting this fictitious argument is somehow the same as a rebuttal against the real person. Bernie simply acknowledged that other countries suffer even worse than Nicaragua. The United States is certainly not such a country, but since it wasn’t a comparison he was making anyway, attempting to focus solely on that fails to demonstrate why Bernie’s overall argument should be condemned. Sure, someone just pursuing business in Russia isn’t enough. Too bad we know that there was a meeting in Trump Tower specifically for the express purpose of getting dirt on Clinton. Can’t wait for your contortionist act to pretend that it somehow proves nothing, because God forbid you have to concede there is even the slightest shred of evidence against Trump. Strangely, for as much as people on both sides of aisle seem to bitch and moan about how they there is no way to afford Bernie’s policies, they seem to have no trouble bringing out even more money for Trump’s vanity projects. Or how about how, thanks to the coronavirus, both Democrats and Republicans are suddenly keen on supporting widespread healthcare, to the point that Bernie was able to persuade Republicans that were holding back the stimulus bill? And once again, you only seem capable of relying on deflection as a substitute for a competent argument. Yes, countries are worse off than the United States. That does absolute nothing to address how the wealth inequality in the United States is still an important problem to address. He already addressed free college, among other things, and I would certainly find it be to an efficient use of money. For the sake of simplicity, I think it’s best to tie the subject of Veritas to the previous point. I was under the impression that you meant over 200 lawsuits, since that seemed rather unrealistic to me. I can accept that they’ve been able to receive a fair number of retractions, and that really doesn’t change my position that they’ve had just as many circumstances that calls their legitimacy into question. Once again, you have a difficult time accepting that people have different perspectives than you. You may believe Veritas, but I have no reason to take them seriously. That is a difference of opinion. As for how this relates to Bernie, you said “we have multiple veritas videos demonstrating at least some of his supporters … are perfectly fine with making communist gulags for republicans and people who sympathize with them”. One random dude is hardly a blistering condemnation against Bernie’s campaign. Oh, you mean the investigation that ended up with Paul Manafort, Michael Cohen, Michael Flynn, and Roger Stone behind bars? Weird how you consider that “falling flat”. The Steele dossier was also not used in the Mueller probe to the degree it was for the FISA renewal, but I understand that it’s easier for you to keep track of things if you bundle them all together. And once again, I need to point out how worthless your deflections are. What would be the point of putting Bernie through the “same rigor”? For as much as you whined about how people like Jose or I have supposedly have a hard time accepting that other people have different beliefs, you keep demanding that Bernie needs to face the same investigation that Trump did before anyone can believe that the allegations against Trump are more likely to be true than they are against Bernie. Sorry to break it to you, but despite the bubble you want to live in, Bernie doesn’t need to face an investigation before people can be “allowed” to have a different opinion than you do on Trump’s guilt. I’d say Mueller found plenty of nail Trump on, particularly obstruction of justice. However, with Barr running the show, that made it harder to actually do anything with it. Just as we’ve talked about with impeachment, it would be reckless to base any action against Trump on a redacted report. I can think it does enough at least support the premise of an impeachment, but why the actual hell would anyone pursue anything until they get an unredacted copy? There are still matters stemming from the Mueller probe that remain unresolved; more of them than I care to count, frankly. Mueller followed policy to not indict Trump, and instead left the matter up to Democrats. They just wanted to get as much as they could before making any case on that front, but given how long it’s taken, I don’t see any case they could come up with actually being useful unless Trump gets reelected, or they decide to pursue him after he’s voted out. Not sure how that would be possible in the latter case, but this is still an ongoing matter. I showed a similar article before, but Ukraine did know that aid was being withheld. Since it completely devastates your bullshit claim that Ukraine didn’t know, I expect you won’t concede it. And oh look, you still have to hide behind whataboutisms. Regardless of how long Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump, they did have grounds to push for impeachment here, and the articles were in direct response to Trump’s actions. They didn’t respond to any of Trump’s requests from before Biden was a candidate, so trying to act as if that somehow undermines their argument accomplishes nothing. They were responding to the demand he made once Biden did enter the race. When did Democrats actively block Republicans from entering? Again, the Republicans that whined about being left out, such as Matt Gaetz, weren’t even on the committees that held those hearings, and those committees did have Republicans in attendance. If you’re not on that committee, then you’re not supposed to be there anyway. That goes for both Republicans and Democrats, though Democrats certainly didn’t whine about being “blocked” by committees they weren’t even a part of. You’re also going to need to provide evidence of which witnesses Democrats supposedly intimidated, given how it was Trump blocking witnesses that provided ammunition for the case of obstruction. And no, even if Pelosi pushed for a censure, I highly doubt that we would have seen “several dozen Republicans switch over in solidarity”. We’ve seen that they’re a cult, and even the act of censuring would have been too much for them. Anyway, Gabbard demolishing Harris is something that I can agree with. While I’m sure there were other factors at play for why Harris dropped out, I was happy Tulsi called her out on her record. That said, I highly doubt she would have been effective against Warren. I’m surprised she had endorsed Biden. The support she had in this election largely seemed to stem from people who supported Bernie in 2016, and saw Tulsi as the next best thing. When Bernie was a write-in candidate, Tulsi was his corresponding vice president. So the appeal of Tulsi, at least from what I saw, is that she basically had all the appeal of Bernie without actually being Bernie himself. I support Justice Democrats, so I would be blind if I thought there wasn’t some conflict within the party. Say what you will of either one of them, but AOC and Pelosi have ostensibly become the faces of two “factions” with the Democratic party. While it is limiting to put this in binary terms, I find it to be a useful starter. You’re screwed basically depending on whether your more in line with Justice Democrats, or if you’re more basically running to kiss Pelosi and Schumer’s ass. While I don’t like Pelosi, I at least have enough faith about removing the bad seeds in the Democratic party. These spats within the party, while unpleasant, leaves me confident that we’ll see some changes. Meanwhile, as you yourself admitted, you and the Republican party went from having reluctance to Trump, to being full-blown sycophants. Forgive me if I’m more willing to throw my hat in with Democrats trying to change the party within rather than the Republicans that have no qualms about becoming a cult. Well, I’d say you and Winter were at least coming from similar enough places. While Winter has advocated multiple times for murdering people just because they disagree with him politically, your position was more sympathetic to the Neo-Nazi, and decidedly hostile towards someone who could easily be smeared as “Antifa”. The protesters were standing well enough away from his car before he drove his car into dozens of people. The fact that he didn’t kill more people doesn’t somehow prove that he didn’t have the intent. I know you’ve said he deserved jail time, but let’s be clear here. The woman he murdered - or, as you so eloquently put it in a brilliant display of empathy, the “fat chick” - was protesting white supremacy. Neither you nor Winter have any love for those kind of people, and in our debates, you have typically defended white supremacists / Neo-Nazis. Is it a case of Fields actually being innocent, or merely that he needs to be innocent so you can feel good about defending him? I get that you and Winter are anti-antifa (I wonder if there's a better phrase there…) but you need to accept that this was an act of malicious intent. Your political disagreements with the victims’ positions don’t mitigate the degree of murder. He accelerated when no one was doing a damn thing to provoke him. At all. Some protesters merely being in proximity to him isn’t provocation. Here’s a handy list that debunks all of the conspiracy theories revolving the murder, though you can ignore the first two points. Only the third and fourth are relevant to our particular discussion. If you want to say anyone is incapable of seeing what happened, you might want to do a better job of backing up your argument. An appeal to authority over some nebulous lawyer on a blog doesn’t really mean much. It’s almost like there were prosecutors whose entire job was about proving Fields guilty. You can say Fields’s own lawyer was shitty; I have no interest in praising or condemning the guy. Just saying that we know he was guilty, and while you can be butthurt that your defense got slapped down, it doesn’t change anything. I did understand that you were talking about the Russia investigation. It confused me because it seemed like you were suddenly pivoting towards the articles of impeachment, which I didn’t see as relevant to the overarching point. If it was just that you were thinking of something else at the time, I’ll accept that. There’s not much point in belaboring that. True, since Rohrabacher was voted out, that made California Republicans even rarer. However, I won’t call the remainder RINOs. Kevin McCarthy, Tom McClintock, and Devin Nunes are perfect examples of the Republican Party. I know I bring up Nunes a lot, but it’s because he is such an easy target to mock. Darrell Issa left his seat because Trump had personally nominated him to the Trade and Development agency, and he’s only running for it again because Duncan Hunter - one of Trump’s very first supporters in Congress - is going to jail. If anything, we got rid of the RINOs, and now we’re stuck with the most ardent Republicans you can find in not only California, but the rest of the country outside of the likes of Kentucky and Alabama. In any case, I agree that Rohrabacher’s offer hinged on something Assange already did, so it would have made no difference. Jose is hardly the first person I’ve heard dismiss Tim Pool as a grifter. That seems like a common criticism of the guy. However, since Jose dared to commit the ultimate sin of *gasp* holding a different opinion than you(!), I understand why you’d dismiss him as either an idiot or stupidly stubborn. When Tim is blasted on by both sides, and encourages other people to check other sources anyway… well, then why would I even be incentivized to use him as a source? From what I understand, the point of him not sitting far enough on one side has more to do with how he doesn’t really seem to believe much of what he’s saying, and he’s mostly saying things for effect. And, well, if he encourages you to look at more sources anyway, it’s kind of weird that you’d go against his advice and predominantly share his videos. Oh, okay, I understand what the push for cleaning up voter rolls is about. Still offfers absolutely nothing whatsoever to somehow show that Clinton’s victory in the popular vote was supposedly invalid. I can't fault Chupp for refusing to read documents again when he already had it. Certainly seems like a fair response when Ty had to withdraw a fraudulent affidavit, and has since consistently tried to sneak it back in. Either way, all of the defendants have filed their appellee briefs. I’m not sure how the outbreak will be affecting the case, though considering how Vic was asked point-blank if he had evidence of interference, and he said he didn’t, I’m not inclined to believe this will end in his favor, nor am I going to step back. With both Mignogna and Fields, you threw your hat in with the guy who was clearly in the wrong. The case completely vindicated my position, and Vic outright admitted to what he was accused of doing, just disagreed over the severity of it and the semantics. And yes, I’m aware that the case doesn’t end at dismissal. More opportunities for me to be vindicated. Personally, I've long accepted that Vic is going to lose the appeal, and the new goalpost is going to be "You forgot that SCOTX exists!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 9, 2020 Report Share Posted April 9, 2020 Glad i waited a week, because we now have a clear ending to the bernie saga. and the result is a hard L. That said, gonna start cutting this response down for times sake. Bernie straight up refuses to drop the socialist label, this is the biggest issue in both the russian spy aspect, and in his election campaign. There is a reason that the argument "Bernie is a Russian agent" holds as much water as the clam that trump is (both being bullshit arguments, but point stands). of course countries suffer worse, but saying "at least they have breadlines" is a terrible look. The dude has a habit of playing the fence on communist regimes, when even the "good" things about them are often leagues worse than they would be elsewhere, like the literacy rate in Cuba. Nicaragua is just an outside example of how he does this, meaning at least he's consistent with that. So is your argument that a contact point introduced via third party, to the son of the person in question for something like an hour tops, even though the son had no idea prior to the meeting that the person had even the most remote ties to Russia, is somehow a strong point of evidence to convict trump on russian collusion? Yet you are arguing that literally honeymooning in Russia, is somehow not enough to make someone worthy of that title of collusion? Or that having a son on the board of a foreign board of a company that handles a product that he holds no experience in dealing with, is somehow also not a strong enough argument to have an investigation despite both hunter and joe biden themselves admitting that corruption is what landed the job? Boy if you don't get that reaching shit out of here. If we go by your own metric, either your own argument here is garbage, or my argument is valid. There are two sides to this coin, but you do not get two flips. You either pick one or the other. Are you seriously comparing the temporary spending of money to handle a worldwide event/national emergency, to a continuous program that would drain the same level of funds over a similar course of time? there is a clear difference between spending to cover massive overflow of hospitals in the event of a pandemic, to spending that same level of money on a constant basis. "we can't let this crisis go to waste" (more or less) was not said by the republicans, but by a democrat, and only democrats blocked the bill. Fact is, republicans wanted to get the bill through asap, with as little spending as possible to both help the people, not over strain the economy, and deliver the cash as soon as possible. Democrats are the ones who stalled it and then filled it with several (some are admittedly good, but all of them could have waited) extra policies that dragged down the distribution time. It is a fact that this stimulus is going to cause massive inflation as we are spending money we do not have. If your argument is that this is a good idea as a constant policy, which you appear to be implying when you link it to bernies plans, then you are gone in the head. luckily, the american people also realize this, and bernie got screwed fairly in the polls. bernies plan is only feasible in the short term, the extremely short term. Try to run it as a constant and you will burn money faster than you can drain it via taxes, and you will still be draining money fast enough to destroy companies. free college, free healthcare, ect, is not a stable policy, it's utopian ideals that sound exactly as nice as they would be destructive if implemented. look at every country that has anything even remotely like them, and you will see that they do not endorse bernies proposed system. In fact, a country (can't recall which, I believe it was Denmark, but too lazy atm to look) flat out stated that bernies plan was nothing like what they have in place when he stated his idea was similar to theirs. Bernies plan is shit. It's utopian daydreaming, that sounds exactly as nice, as it would be destructive. we all want healthcare, but the government forcing it through on taxpayer dime, is not the way to do it, especially under bernies ideals. veritas is a legit source, and that "random bernie supporter" was a staffer on the bernie campaign, hardly random when a guy responsible for organizing your message is the one spouting the idea, on top of that, thanks to waiting a week, we now see bernie bros drop the "democratic" in front of their socialist titles, and i bet we would definitely have seen exactly how "tolerant" they would be about losing, had we not been in quarantine. But hey, no refunds right? The fbi investigation was still included in the muller report, they are intertwined as they are all part of the same vein of investigation and used much of the same data. Also, when your boy bernie takes a 2 year investigation and comes out no worse for wear, you can talk to me about equal levels of innocence. They couldn't even pin a thing on trump that wasn't already media fluff, after two whole years worth of investigating. The point of putting bernie through the same rigor is called making a fair argument. Trump went through over two years of investigations from the highest seats in the land, and they STILL got nothing to pin on him. and obstruction is a stupid charge to brag about when it's literally the only thing they could so much as attempt to make fly, and even then it would be dubious at best. "The suspect didn't commit the robbery, but he did protest his treatment using the rights he possesses, guess we can pin him for obstructing justice" that's how shit your argument is. If your candidate doesn't have the same credentials, then he is not on the same level. End of story. You serious about that question? Are you that biased? Or are you as gone as biden? look at any prior impeachment and you will see that both sides were allowed to participate, both sides were allowed to set the terms, regardless of minority, any closed doors had democrats and republicans inside to discuss the topics, there was no blocking of the minority party's ability to call witnesses as there was here, the list goes on. the republican party came to respect him, while the democrats have embraced outrage, it's that simple. i already told you how that could have been a win for democrats, the fact that they have been partisan the whole while, disrespecting even the basic premise of honor, regardless of occasion, so long as it meant insulting trump, shows exactly what i mean. Name one SOTU where republicans were as nasty as dems have been, name one impeachment process more biased than this one. people have been trying to impeach, delay, and otherwise disrespect trump from the start. It's called TDS, and it is a demonstrable phenomenon. in fact, you could make several prediction based upon TDS, and you would see the people following accordingly. for example, hydroxychloroquine probably butchered that one, doctors said it has seen success, trump says the same after hearing it, and they swarm him, with one state democrat even trying to ban it, then it sees some effective runs, and they try to run a claim that trump had a stock share in it all along, with some idiots even trying to call for a second impeachment over such a flimsy rationale. The list could literally go on for days about the mental gymnastics people with TDS go through, but i'll let you do the next flip. sit down with this old ass argument. Yes, a fat chick dies, nobody else even goes to ICU. Do you know what a vehicle driven with even the barest intent to kill would do to bodies? i'll give you a basic image search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=vehicle+hitting+bodies&t=h_&iax=images&ia=images that's about what even the barest "intent to kill" looks like. Your "intent" arguments are meaningless. If he was driving the car like an Islamist, then, you would have an argument. He drove like somebody who made a mistake, and the condition of the people hit, backs that fact up. One dead fat chick out of a whole crowd of people, who have no business being in the street in the first place, does not prove intent to kill, much less intent to hit people. People call everyone a grifter, spend enough time looking and you will find people calling literally anybody a grifter, from ben shapiro, to joe rogan, to any other popular name you can name. it's a pointless argument, and that's where i'm leaving it. You got a problem with any tim pool video i use, you can address it there and we can have talk, till then, your source is just another person upset, because his desired narrative isn't the one he's hearing from tim. I've got my own issues with tim, but i don't use videos from tim that i haven't personally watched and checked the logic on, and his sources are all third party certified, by left leaning organization no less, many of which, are the same sources you yourself often use. look at the map again, trump beat clinton in every state he won, so those all have majority trump numbers, now look at the largest states trump won by any large margin in, and subtract those from the largest ones hillary won by a large margin in. What you see, is that of all the most massive states, california and new york, were overwhelmingly clinton favored, while mainly only texas, was overwhelmingly trump. what that means, is that clinton has two of the most massive states buffing her numbers, while trump mainly has just texas. New york and texas pretty much cancel each other out as far as vote comparison, and that leaves the massive state of california to lean the popular vote count towards hillary. look at the electoral votes, going by state, hillary lost badly, but thanks mainly to the absolute size of her two largest supporting states, she still managed to influence the popular vote. 4 million is nothing. New york alone has over 20 million people, and california has 39.5 million. Do you not understand how such massive states are capable of stealing the popular vote of an election? remove cali and texas from the equation, and suddenly the popular vote would be a hell of a lot closer. i'm dropping the vic case till it resolves, but i will gladly bet anything you want on vic winning. If you are that confident, go ahead and make any proposal. anything from a status change, to permanent public admission, to leaving forever. that's how confident i am that you're wrong. If you got the balls to flip that coin then make that bet, if not, then this topic is done for now. I don't have enough time to play around as much as i did in 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted April 9, 2020 Report Share Posted April 9, 2020 I think we pretty much said all that needs to be said about Bernie in this thread. Since you were cutting your response time for the sake of time, I think the subject of Bernie is an easy one to drop. Not sure how a honeymoon is just as bad, if not worse than specifically arranging a meeting for the express purpose of getting dirt on a rival in an election. Let’s also not get into all the business ties Trump’s sons have, or Jared Kushner getting put in charge of coronavirus surveillance just because he’s Trump’s son-in-law. Correct me if I’m wrong, but generally your arguments have come from a position that it’s okay when Trump did it, but wrong when everyone did the same damn thing. It’s one thing to demand consistency from other people. It’s another thing entirely to refuse showing that consistency yourself, and merely holding the double standard in reverse. At least Democrats blocked the bill so they could add more policies that help during the pandemic. That’s certainly more admirable than Republicans trying to sneak in anti-abortion language. Taking advantage of the pandemic to push irrelevant policies is despicable. Depending on the company, pretty sure Bernie and anyone who supports his policies are fine with him harming companies. If it’s to harm companies like Disney, Amazon, or Twitter, that’s fine. I can hardly see them being “destroyed”. It’s how you can weaken them without also harming smaller business that would be the main difficulty. Once again, I don’t see the point in “when your boy bernie takes a 2 year investigation and comes out no worse for wear, you can talk to me about equal levels of innocence.” Sorry, but it just doesn’t work like that. Being vindictive because your guy got investigated doesn’t mean the only “fair” thing to do is to investigate whichever candidate is favored by the person you’re debating. It once again goes back to you only responding to criticisms of Trump by trying to point fingers at everybody else. Do you honestly expect anyone to see that as a coming from any interest in “fairness”? It’s petty retaliation at best. Interesting that instead of answering my question about when Republicans were actually blocked from closed hearings, you went for implicitly accusing me of dementia. Like, fine, I’m used to you ignoring a point in a debate when you’ve completely lost on all grounds, but come on. As Democrats wonderfully pointed out multiple terms, they were following the exact terms Republicans had set during the Benghazi hearings. In other words, both sides did set the terms, regardless of minority. Republicans just got butthurt that their own rules got used against them. Again, I ask you to cite when the Republicans were blocked. That is a fair question. I would have been fine with you begrudgingly providing examples, frustrated that I even asked for it, but confident in your argument regardless. Since you couldn’t be bothered to actually provide any evidence, that suggests your argument has none. Otherwise, why wouldn’t you have cited it? The doctors who studied hydroxychloroquine specifically had to point out that it failed to meet their standards. People jumped on Trump because as soon as he talked it up, a couple took it, with the husband dying from it, and the wife ending up in critical condition. Again, I know it’s easier for you and your ilk to compare opposition to Trump to a mental illness, but when he is actively causing harm, opposing him is a reasonable response. For as much as you condemn anyone who dares to have a different opinion than you, you seem to have no qualms adopting the “TDS” argument, as if that’s somehow a sufficient argument. You support Trump in all he does. I get that. But as we’ve seen, you see “derangement” when people dare to criticize Trump for pushing a drug. I see people rightfully pointing out that the drug has been proven to have dangerous side effects, which makes it irresponsible of him to keep recommending it. That’s called perspective. For as much you demonize anyone who dares not to share the same perspective as you, you might be willing to follow for your own advice for a change. Or is even the most basic criticism of "This is a dangerous drug, so Trump should not be advising people to take it" somehow so offensive that you would dismiss it as "derangement"? The counterprotesters went out of their way to get a permit. They had every reason to be there, but as always, it’s a fact that’s inconvenient for your narrative, so that will likely be ignored. It seems that you didn’t even bother to look at the article I cited, which specifically established how the evidence was presented in the trial to debunk the claim. Or maybe you since, because at least you dropped the claim that people were somehow attacking him. He accelerated his car into people, without any provocation. At the absolute best, the only distinctions you have any ground to make about his intentions are that he drove his car to either kill or “just” injure people. We know for a fact that he was not under attack. We know for a fact that the counterprotesters were allowed to be there. We know for a fact that he drove his car into a crowd without any provocation. It would it be more comforting to you if you could claim in full confidence that it was those mean protesters who attacked poor, helpless James first. Alas, that was not the case, so your pitiful defense is worthless. Rather than conceding the point, you repeat the same lie over and over. Unfortunately, repetition will not make it true. I'm sorry that reality will not conform to your beliefs, but I am not here to console you about that. I’m using the sources directly. Tim tries to twist articles so he whine about liberals, and you still don’t seem to get that what you’re accusing Jose of doing is what Tim actually does. I have no idea where you’re basing the idea that “your source is just another person upset, because his desired narrative isn't the one he's hearing from tim.” I mean, aside from how it’s a common criticism you throw at me or anyone else I cite, regardless of whether it’s an appropriate criticism. Seems like he watched Tim's videos and observed distortions in Tim's ways of speaking. That seems like a fair criticism. If you can concede that you have your own problems with Tim, I would think that there's no harm in conceding that much. If you need to ask about removing two of the biggest states from the equation, then it’s clear that my argument was correct. I said that Hillary won the popular vote, and you attempted to debunk that argument. Your own source against it is gone, and now you have to change your approach to the argument. Seems like it would just be easier to admit that, yes, Hillary won the popular vote. I notice that this is a trend in your argument. You will argue from one position, but once it's been challenged, you'll have to forgive me if I think the most appropriate response is to own that mistake. Instead, you act as if you were never making that argument in the first place, and start talking about something else. Hillary won the popular vote, and while you could remove some states from the equation, we're talking about the "equation" as it is. I’ll take your bet. Once Vic loses his appeal, you will say that you were wrong. No weaseling out of it by saying that I “might” have been right about one thing, but there’s some other factor to it that somehow means he still won, and that's what really makes you right. You will post a status publicly apologizing because your choice to stand with Vic was wrong, and concede that I was right. After you post that, you will leave this site forever. If you're willing to put that on the table, then I'm holding you to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryusei the Morning Star Posted April 11, 2020 Report Share Posted April 11, 2020 >a couple took it Wrong They took Chloroquine Phospate + other bleaching agents when ideally you would take Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate The difference between Meth and Addy is 1 Methyl Group, the diff between Methanol which will blind and kill you, and ethanol, which is in wine, is one carbon These small differences make a big difference Also she took a fucking teaspoon, if I give you warfarin for your heart condition, will you go eat rat poison which is the same chemical at a 10000x dosage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 11, 2020 Report Share Posted April 11, 2020 On 4/9/2020 at 10:52 AM, Phantom Roxas said: several interesting statements And here i thought I would be keeping it short. Times like this i really wish spoilers still worked, it would make it way easier to form this response. Either way though, Addressing the tim argument first because it somehow feels out of place all the way down there. Tim, while he complains and adds his own views, tends to be on topic. I won't argue that he does get a bit... Excessive at times, and can be off topic in a few videos, even i have seen reason to call him out at times for making certain reaches, or for making an argument or claim that breaks via his own known actions or standards. but opinionated does not mean he is using bad sources, and on that note, you literally cannot dispute tims sources, as he uses a proper third party source to verify them, that leans left in the first place, and is quite vocal about when he is using a source that is not verified by said source. on top of that, as i said before, time I could go much further, but I have no idea how spoilers work on this new site. That's how i would normally format certain arguments to avoid clutter, and his is already gonna be a long response. The man picked a near peak moment in the cold war, to visit russia, at nearly the height of the USSR's power. Bernie decided that bringing along political allies to foster a relationship with a city in russia during the cold war, was all while he was holding enough political power to be worth corrupting, but not enough power to actually effect proper change yet, was a good idea. Compare that to trump jr. One is a meeting arranged via third party, with someone who worked with fusion gps and has ties to the debunked steel dossier, aka, a person more associated with the american democratic party, and a failed political hit piece, than russia. The other, aka bernie, made the voluntary choice, to spend ample time under the shadow of what at the time was a massive regime that still held tensions with america (bringing his wife along with him) Several sites literally try to claim that they took a "proper honeymoon the next year" but a honeymoon a year later is not a proper excuse, considering his first anniversary is the next year, and a trip would have been in order regardless. How can't you see why this is easily a comparable argument? On top of that, for the business relations, business ties are not the same as a political honeymoon to a country that is currently in a cold war with your own. Let's not pretend it is. As far as jobs, Trumps kids actually have credits to their names in business development by this point, and they held no political power. It would be akin to calling business owners communists for exploiting Chinese labor for lower costs (dick move yes, but a communist, it does not make them). Unlike bidens kid, trumps kids actually have knowledge in the field they are working in. As far as the russia business deals go, unlike bernie, none of the trumps have been preaching socialist party policy during their time as businessmen, and were not elected officials, but regular businessmen for the most part. You have to make the argument that he is less qualified than the people beneath him. Bernies wife has been working for his political party since the early 2000's, if you want to use that argument, then family members working closely with the parties in politics is nothing new, and trumps family actually has (for the most part) lifelong experience that can help assist with the corona outbreak, such as a business acumen that allows them to handle control of the monetary distribution, production methods, and supply allocations that may fall under government jurisdiction. My argument is not "it's only right when trump does it" it's "if you want to aim at trump, i can show you several political precedents and actions that were established or occurred, well before trump, that exonerate the mans actions by the same metric you use to attack him." after finishing and looking over this respons, gonna have to ask that you read this one properly, you have, several times, made mistakes that imply you are incapable of giving the benefit of the doubt, i have not done you the same disservice, and i expect that respect of you. you can keep in those sly jabs, i actually love the spice, but when it comes to the arguments, try to actually understand my points, if not the entire implicated meanings, then at least the verbatim words i type. I am actually reading through your comments and responding as accurately as possible so as not to misconstrue you any further than reasonable, i expect that same courtesy. For examples, when i defend trumps actions requesting investigations into biden for having his son on a foreign board, it's not (just) because it's family, it's because as established, hunter has literally no experience in the field he was placed in, or even experience in the field of business really. We literally have video of hunter admitting his gains were likely due entirely to nepotism, and video of biden boasting of said nepotism that started the whole thing. If we can hit trump on an impeachment charge for requesting an investigation, then there is no viable reason we cannot hit biden. When i point out that sanders honeymooned in Russia, parties with dictators, and praise regimes that are unquestionably horrible (Venezuela for one), it's not because i consider him a russian agent, and i said this already. It is to point out that had trump done these things, you would undoubtedly use them against him, even though sanders' political message is far closer to communist/socialist regimes than trumps own message. I make arguments that test your blinders, and you often miss this entirely, due to the same said blinders. That is the whole point. They did not have to block this, and should not be delaying the aspects that they already agree on and can pass unopposed. Especially during a time where people and small businesses literally cannot pay their bills due to state actions and need the money. In fact, democrats literally blocked a bill just hours ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5CxjVPOcI&list=WL&index=9&t=1s The bill was simply a doubling of funds to small businesses. all the worse as far as interruptions go, because there was nothing in it anybody was able to object to, nothing about large businesses like Disney or amazon was in the bill. All the dems wanted were useless diversity quotas and the like, added into parts where they had no business being. They could have passed the initial bill, and then argued for a new bill, to handle the further desired demands as necessary. The method they use now holds up the entire bill, and it's literally for the most pointless fluff you can think of, aka "diversity quotas" This is literally the republicans trying to add more money asap to avoid the worst outcomes of this economic halt, and democrats are, instead of passing this one thing what they can all agree on, and working to make new legislation to work their extra fluff through, are halting the entirety of the aide, and instead, saying "more money to keep businesses afloat, is not enough, we are going to try and force our agenda through at the same time" they are literally holding up aide to the people of this nation, because they want to throw in what are in my opinion the most useless clauses possible. They can do ALL of that in another bill under development. The bill that was ready to go was already filled with things both parties could agree on. Tim even points out several clear inconsistencies in the media, like how several sites changed their old titles to make the dems look better. then he explains in fair detail how this kind of dishonest reporting covers for the democrats, and only makes the divide worse. There is nothing vindictive. That boy trump already came out clean from several separate investigations. Not proven guilty in america, is the effective equal of innocent. Your argument here fails because i already addressed your point. Here you make this mistake that i mentioned in an above edit as i was finishing up. You seem to make responses that are not actually applicable to what i say. I get it, it's a nice projector, but you need to turn it off my guy. Go reread what i wrote on bernie, I said the accusations against him were bunk, but the gravity of them was on par with anything against trump. Then i pointed out how bad they look in context, and pointed out just how hard you would be going on trump if anything bernie or biden did applied to him. Under my standards, both parties are innocent. Not only did i state trump, bernie, and tulsi were innocent of the accusation, i pointed out, and explained how if your own standards were able to include the trump jr meeting, then by your own standards, there is ample evidence against your own candidate, and if you were consistent in your standard, you would either demand as much of an investigation into him as trump had, or leave the situation be, because your standards would damn sure not ignore bernies actions had it been trump taking them on. Trump came out clean, and while i would say bernie could also come out clean, the point is that trump went through a thorough investigation, making the points against him, carry far less water, assuming you hold the same standards across the board. I answered your question, you must not have read the actual statement if you believe otherwise so here you go. I'll restate it and break it down for you: "Look at any prior impeachment and you will see that both sides were allowed to participate, both sides were allowed to set the terms, regardless of minority, any closed doors had democrats and republicans inside to discuss the topics." let me break it down for you, since you somehow couldn't: In other impeachments, There was no blocking of the minority party's ability to call witnesses as there was here. During the impeachment hearing for nixon, both parties were pissed, and they unilaterally were about to slap him down, under that context, the impeachment was obviously bipartisan. We then get to clinton, while the democrats were in the minority at the time, the republicans still gave them a say, and did not block this many motions from the democrats, and gave them near equal time, to conduct interviews and call witnesses. The democrats and republicans had nearly equal time to present arguments during the Clinton impeachment. There was absolutely none of that during the trump hearing. A total of about 70 hours was sunk into the impeachment trial for trump, and democrats had control of over 50 hours of that time early, with zero hours of republican input allowed during that time. This impeachment was extremely partisan in comparison to how republicans handled the Clinton impeachment. The only reason you could not see it is because you are suffering tds, but it's ok, i'm here to help you, so let's continue. Hydroxicloroquine probably butchered that again was already sanctioned in malaria, arthritis, and several other treatments, and has seen success in treating symptoms for severe cases of the CCP virus already. It's a drug we already have on hand, and have experience with, thus can use more effectively to minimize unexpected factors. Trump did not call it a miracle cure, he said, verbatim: "It might work, it might not, we should try it" and fauchi agreed that it was worth a shot to treat symptoms, as did cuomo down the line. It's easy to make, and already has some documented uses going in, thus it is a better option than just hoping and praying. also, I need to rip into your CNN use for one minute, take a look at the first paragraph, at the quote they use. Did you notice it? do you see where they twist the narrative from the onset? i'll give you the answer, it's where they start the quotation marks: "pointing in a tweet and in person to a French study as evidence that one particular drug combination might be "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine."" Is what they do, where it should look like: "pointing in a tweet and in person to a French study as evidence that one particular drug combination "might be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." See how that changes the feel of the quote? They do this several times,. They subtly shift the way they quote trump, and it comes off with an entirely differe t feel than it otherwise would. On top of that, they edited the article after you posted it, to add... they actually don't say that they add. I would assume though, that what they added would be the small admission in the end, where doctors who say while that study wasn't good, they think that the study still showed that the drug shows some promise, and is worth studying further. Alongside the fact that several larger organizations are also looking into the drug, because its' known properties happen to be perfect counters to one of the ways in which the drug can cause death (cytokine storms). Gotta love that CNN right? Just taking just a shot in the dark with this guess, but were tim to do things the way CNN did in this article, crunching quotations in ways that shift the meanings of quotes, would you not try to nail his ass to a cross for it? Just wondering. I know i would, and call him out on such things, as i do on occasion when i see him make a mistake in a video that could lead to a dishonest or illogical conclusion. Side note, did you know that too much dihidrogen monoxide also has severe side effects, and has been used to kill and torture millions of people, throughout history? Trump still says it's good for the people in the proper dosage though. He must hold the people in utter contempt for the people of america right? That's kind of what you sound like to me right now. You are trying to claim a drug that is already known, and has been getting used in the medical field long enough that we know better how to use it on symptoms than almost any other known option against this ccp virus, is somehow a terrible thing to endorse. everything can kill you, the question is whether or not we can discover, and apply the proper dosage to treat symptoms. Get over your tds. Like i said, i'm here to help you. It's ok, we aren't scary people. Did you know that standing in the way of an oncoming car is a stupid idea? i know, shocking right? I know about the permit, i also know about the person who literally bragged about causing an incident, by making threatening gestures with his gun, and showed you several videos and articles of them, (like this one: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/01/armed-antifa-professor-admits-chasing-charlottesville-driver-rifle-deadly-crash/) demonstrating that he was deadass serious about his intent to cause if not harm, then at the absolute least, serious disruptions. the man(?) was absolutely elated on his twitter about the fact that he caused an accident. You seem to have missed those facts several dozen times. Just saying it now, but the crash he caused, is far worse than the one fields was in, but we'll get there again in a second. I gave you many of these facts already, several times. I gave you several others as well, in the past but it'll take more time to relocate those. I showed you, several times over how the trial was bunk in the first place, but let's go over it again, this time breaking it down for you piece by piece again. point 3) http://www.departmentofmemes.com/article/protesters-attacked-charlottesville-drivers-car-baseball-bat/ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSz5zr-rdMU for a clearer view, with similar breakdowns. This shows you a breakdown of the video, using the actions at the scene to demonstrate what i have been saying all along. In fact, the freeze at :10 shows his car being assaulted by a random dude with a weapon (seems to be a bat, and we know antifa has plenty of those). You really want to argue that a guy who is driving a hellcat capable of a clean 0-60 on the autobahn, with the intent to kill or maim a crowd of people, is going to be driving slow enough to get hit by a slow ass swing from a baseball bat? He was clearly startled, hit the gas just barely harder than he would otherwise have, and ending in the crash. The officers themselves reported him as scared at the end of the scenario, not as murderous, which aligns with his comment of being "chased by violent terrorists (aka antifa)" like he told his mom. It is only several months later, after the gravity of the situation, and the injustice of the narrative, that he shows this resentment. Claiming that this is somehow evidence of past malice is deliberate ignorance of how humans work. Rage at unjust accusations is a 100% understandable stance. Let's say you crash by accident, and people (by people i mean the media at large) use that crash to claim you're a malicious murderer, would you take that on the chin peacefully, or would you be absolutely furious that the media is absolutely smearing what was a literal accident? The dude was venting to his mother, of course he's pissed. He knows he's innocent, and his mother has to talk to him now through a damn jail cell. tell me he has no right to be mad when he's painted as the villain and is on his way to a kangaroo court. We even saw it attempted with the covington kid case in fact, every outlet smeared them to the dirt, ruining their lives, and had the full video not surfaced, the media would have only gone in harder. luckily media got their comeuppance in that case, unlike this one. point 4) the attempt to discredit fields makes zero sense, as dixon (or any other maniac with weapons like antifa enjoys employing against innocent people) chasing him with a rifle would be ample grounds to establish the argument that the baseball bat hitting his car, after being intimidated by a man with a gun, would be enough rationale for the slight speed boost to 28mph. I go faster than that on a morning commute. Are you really going to tell me the splc has a grounded argument, when their nail in the argument is that 28mph is proper attempted murder speed? This is a video from the same day, showing how "well" antifa was behaving towards drivers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZAf-6irU2Y&feature=youtu.be different car in this one, but you see the point? and we see in the film involving the death, that a man hit the back of the drivers car with a weapon as well, likely startling him. Antifa is not a movement of peace. We see everywhere they go they bring violence where there often would not be any, and this scenario is no different. Hell, look at the way they reacted to that other one, awful lot of bat for some "preaceful" protesters huh? Fact is, they were attacking people all day, and one of them lost the coin flip. It wasn't even the car hit that killed her, she died from a damn heart attack. She was unhealthy as hell. If you want to claim she suffered injuries severe enough to kill her from the car, nope: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1gJl8p0R4U&feature=youtu.be. You see that? THAT'S an impact with intent to kill. Yet nobody died from that much of a hit (hospitalizations occured, but point stands). The video you want to claim was a lethal strike had zero acceleration in comparison. You see the point here? The man was accused of something he clearly did not mean to do, and her unhealthy lifestyle cost two lives, hers, and the unfortunate man who made her heavy commie heart finally put in real work. Now let's keep going. We know a man hit the back of his car with a bat, it's in the video, you can't even pretend that the back of his car wasn't hit, because you can literally see the dude swing in the most common video of the event. If you're driving and a man hits the back of your vehicle, while your foot is on the petal, would you really not be startled enough to slightly speed up? I showed you a video from that very same day of a proper impact, fields was driving far slower than that, and yet you expect your argument to float? Nah my guy. We know that at the absolute least, a man hit the back of his car immediately before the impact. We know that even with permission to be there, they were instigating incidents of violence the entire day, and fighting with the other people there. We know antifa has an extraordinarily consistent record of bringing violence with them to events that would be otherwise peaceful. You gonna tell me the guy who hit the back of his car in the same video was being peaceful? Nice try. No my friend, you are ignoring the existence of math, and (hopefully not on purpose) ignoring or distorting the actual explanation. I suppose i really do have to make it so simple a child could understand it. first, lets revisit my statement to point out how you misrepresent my comment: "look at the electoral votes, going by state, hillary lost badly, but thanks mainly to the absolute size of her two largest supporting states, she still managed to influence the popular vote. 4 million is nothing. New york alone has over 20 million people, and california has 39.5 million. Do you not understand how such massive states are capable of stealing the popular vote of an election? remove cali and texas from the equation, and suddenly the popular vote would be a hell of a lot closer." In other words, the point was not that clinton didn't win the popular vote, but that the popular vote was due solely to the absolute size of her two most popular states. She got beat in enough states that the whole map was practically red. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html#4.00/39.63/-96.56 this was the equivalent of a murder scene as far as how red the map was that election. Nobody was contesting that hillary won the popular vote, in fact, that just makes it funnier. I was demonstrating that her "popular vote" was nothing more than a consolation prize. she got dragged, and california/new york, known democrat strongholds, were the only thing keeping her old ass on life support with a verdict like that. you may not like facts, but i'm here to teach you as well, just take my hand, together we could rule the galaxy!/s Deal, your same conditions will aply to you for my end. And in the event that there's one win and one loss (shared between the funi and marchi/ron suits), we both leave forever on a count of phyrric victory. Sounds like fun to me. Now let's flip that coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted April 12, 2020 Report Share Posted April 12, 2020 I get that Tim is using third party sources. I only disputed when the source in question was Veritas, which is one source out of many, and I know it is far from the only source he uses. I am saying that Tim distorts what articles are trying to say. You believe he’s on topic, and I simply disagree with that. If you can agree that he makes certain reaches, I think it’s fair to say that I found those off-putting. When you are relying on his personal distortions instead of the article itself, that is what I disagree with. If you’re willing to acknowledge that he is vocal about using a source that is not verified, then that’s great! Unverified sources as an idea are more important to something later on in my post, but I’ll save that for when it comes. I understand that you’re more interested in highlighting what you believe to be an inconsistency on my part, rather than adopting the allegations as something you truly believe in. We agree that the accusations against Sanders are nonsense. Where we disagree is that I think allegations against Trump have merit, while you believe they have just as little merit as the allegations against Sanders. Again, Trump had ongoing contacts, so this isn’t just about one meeting with someone who is more tied to the Democratic party. Just as an example, with Trump Jr. we have the following: “Goldstone said the Russians had documents that could ‘incriminate’ Clinton, and Trump Jr. replied, “‘if it’s what you say I love it.’” It’s just one quote, because I frankly don’t want to pad out this post more than I need to. Meanwhile, Sanders’s honeymoon in Russia happened in the same year that Reagan went to Russia. “In 1988, Reagan even visited Moscow, and he admitted to a journalist that he no longer thought of the U.S.S.R. as an ‘evil empire.’” This is the kind of context that you seem to either be missing or are deliberately misrepresenting. If you want to compare Bernie’s visit to anyone, Reagan would be more appropriate than Trump. Both Sanders and Reagan were seeking to resolve tensions between America and Russia, while the allegations against Trump revolve around him enabling Russian interference. Could you at least accept that I see Sanders and Trump as having vastly different motivations, or are you still going to insist that I have blinders? You claim you have done me no disservice, but when I’ve tried to explain certain behaviors, you dismiss the reasons given, and insist it’s because of “blinders” or “Trump derangement syndrome”. That is an actual disservice which misrepresents arguments far past what is reasonable. If you expect as much courtesy as you’ve displayed, then don’t expect much. I appreciate you making the distinction about Trump’s sons. That said, Hunter Biden does have experience in business, but I could understand if your issue is that he had not been specifically involved in gas up to that point. When Democrats blocked the bill, they immediately offered a new version that maintained the funding for small businesses, as well as offering additional provisions for hospitals and state and local governments, not “diversity quotas”, whatever the hell that nonsense is supposed to mean. I agree that they could have asked for this under separate bill, but I don’t see the harm in them trying to attach it to this bill. I think my earlier paragraphs about the respective allegations against Sanders and Trump was already addressed much of the same points as you’re saying here, so I’ll move on to the next point. Yes, I saw your statement about how this impeachment differed from precedent. However, you failed to provide evidence that Republicans were actually blocked from hearings. You’re just saying it was the case, but we know that Republicans did indeed participate in the closed hearings. Let’s also not forget how, during the public hearings, Eric Swalwell masterfully implicated Devin Nunes by pointing out his contacts with Lev Parnas, showing a clear conflict of interest on Nunes’s part, right in front of Nunes himself. Recognizing that the distinction you’re attempting to make is invalid isn’t a matter of “TDS” or whatever. I’ve simply seen enough evidence to the contrary. Once again, it seems that for all your bluster about how I supposedly cannot accept someone having a different opinion than my own, you try to rationalize our disagreement as some “derangement” on my part. Yes, hydroxychloroquine can treat other diseases. Doesn’t change that Fauci called the evidence anecdotal. My mistake for calling it a dangerous drug, though. Merely that it is dangerous for Trump to be touting this as a treatment for coronavirus. You’re that upset over where the quotation mark is? The language is exactly the same, and the meaning is consistent regardless of whether the quotation mark is before or after “might be”. If you need to assume what they added to the article, then forgive me if I don’t take your guesses very seriously. To answer your question, no, I would hardly see the point in criticizing Tim if he did the same thing as CNN did here. It’s just a quotation mark. Since it would be a disservice if I said that your comment came from some kind of derangement, so I’ll just ask politely. What “entirely different feel” did you get by seeing the quotation mark after “might be” than if it was placed before? Or are you so desperate that you need to imagine some great sin in their method quoting? I’m kind of impressed that you read the SPLC article and still misunderstood what it was saying. Here, let me quote the relevant section. “Dixon told jurors the windows on the car had a very dark tint and he didn’t see the driver. Security video and witness testimony placed Fields and three other people at a convenience store across town buying drinks and walking back to Fields’ car from McIntyre Park during that time frame. Also, police used a geolocator from Fields’ Facebook account to retrace his movements after the attack. The geolocator puts Fields in different spots in downtown Charlottesville, but never anywhere that Dixon could have seen him. Fields never drove down Jefferson Street where Dixon was standing. Fields also used his phone to find directions back to Maumee, Ohio. None of those directions took him down Jefferson Street.” Did you see it? You must not have, otherwise you wouldn’t be insisting that Dixon threatened Fields. He thought that Fields was the person he threatened, but it wasn’t actually him. It was some other person who, as far as I am aware, either has not been identified, or at the very least, is known to not have been Fields. If you want to say that Dixon caused the crash, sorry, but he didn’t. Once again, that’s a fact that’s inconvenient to your narrative. While it does not excuse Dixon’s threats, it also means that he did not threaten Fields, which is one more mark against the excuse that Fields was “provoked”. The guy with the baseball bat hit the car after Fields accelerated. For as much as you criticized the “framing” of the incident as “white supremacist murders feminist”, can’t you recognize how attempting to reframe it as “man retaliates after antifa attacks him” is a clear manipulation? I said you could ignore the first two points in that article because I at least appreciated that you didn’t parrot the “heart attack” conspiracy theory, but then you went and did so anyway. I’ll quote the key point from the article again. Maybe you might learn something. “Virginia’s assistant chief medical examiner Dr. Jennifer Bowers, the assistant chief medical examiner for Virginia, said Heyer died from massive blunt force trauma to the torso after being hit by a car. Multiple photos show Heyer at the scene when Fields slammed into the crowd of counterprotesters. Her blood was found on four spots on Fields’ car. Heyer had multiple internal injuries, and the main artery leading from Heyer’s heart was beyond repair. ‘It was snapped in half,’ Bowers told jurors during the trial.” I mean, come on. What do you expect me to believe, some random conspiracy theory with no supporting evidence, or an actual report from a properly licensed medical examiner who testified during the trial? I am genuinely uncertain why you are repeating this conspiracy after it’s already been debunked. But hey, thanks for going so far as to blame for her own death. Sorry, but just because you can call her “antifa” doesn’t mean she’s the guilty party here. If you're aware of the history for the heart attack conspiracy, you should know that it's false, and you are either trolling or you're just parroting whatever talking points are most convenient for your position, without engaging in any form of critical thinking to decide what's actually true. You know what the funny thing is with both of those videos you used to respond to point 4? They’re both videos of James Fields. The first one, which you claimed was a “different car”, is actually still Fields’s car, and shows the attacks starting after the collision. The second video, which has footage also in the video you linked in response to point 3, is also about James Fields. So, thank you for proving my point for me. You shared a video of James Fields driving his car into a crowd, and you said “You see that? THAT'S an impact with intent to kill.” I’m very happy that we can agree that your video of James Fields proves that he had intent to kill. Congratulations, you played yourself. Every single defense you had for James Fields is gone. Can we move on now? Or are you going to keep pushing more conspiracy theories you get from the likes of The Daily Stormer or 8chan because thinking for yourself is too hard? “she won popular vote huh? well, seeing as we already pointed out the flaws in the tim is not a source argument, let's go for this vid, reading the article but ignoring the tim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bQBEjkdT3 There are counties with hella unorganized voter rolls, and the argument against organizing them on the democrat side is muh racism (just try and find me any article that defends keeping the voter rolls untidied that doesn't try to tie race or sexism or some other character attack into it). There are legitimate arguments for fixing the voter registration rolls, in fact, fixing it would be the common sense thing to do if you want to streamline the process for everyone, but instead? We have counties that have more votes than eligible population, and more voters than the whole population.” Maybe that was something Tim touched on in his video before it got deleted, but if the point was that the popular vote was only due to the size of California and New York, that is a point you personally did not articulate until your previous post. I'm happy to take the bet because, as you've shown throughout this thread, you rarely admit when you're wrong. That isn't to ignore the occasional concessions you've made here and there, but since you keep repeating dead conspiracy theories from the alt-right, and you didn’t even seem to realize that you actually proved Fields’s intent to kill, a pyrrhic victory may be the most you can comprehend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vla1ne Posted April 13, 2020 Report Share Posted April 13, 2020 Not just Veritas, but I have pointed out over the course of these posts, that not only does tim use third party confirmation, but that he encourages his viewers to go to other news sources besides him. He supports reporters on both sides of the fence for people to get a proper mix of opinions. as far as a source goes, his articles are in the video, it's not like anybody and their mother can't just read along to see if and where he runs off on a tangent. complaining about tim makes no sense, his videos are there for all to see, and he himself tells people to call him out if and when he gets things wrong. lately he's been a bit more hard-headed, but he still forms his basis on more consistent arguments than most of the people he criticizes. I really wish i had a spoiler notice for that article, but i'll do it up to 5, just to give you a hint of what they're trying to make into "valid" claims. 1) trump was invited to Russia, through his personal assistant, by a British agent, or a Russian pop star. he declined. that's the first one they have on their list. tells you exactly how this list is gonna go. 2) Cohen talks to trump about meeting with Russia, and sees about the Russians interest in it. that is literally all it was. Claiming this was somehow trump seeking corruption, is to ignore that trump also had talks with Germany. You wanna call him hitler too? he also talked with Slovenia, china Scotland, Mexico, Ireland, Sweden, the list goes on. 3) A real estate mogul building a tower in yet another country is not an article worth going into. do not forget trumps original job, and the sheer level of connections he has as a businessman. the man is a household name for a reason. 4) A rich woman contacts trumps daughter about building aforementioned tower. this is then passed onto cohen, who in the end, declines the offer. Do i even need to explain how this isn't even close to a political argument? Yes, the husband has ties to the russian government. This is a business deal over building the trump tower, an unashamedly american brand, on foreign soil, there is zero reason to doubt that it got the attention of putin, but there is less chance of trump being corrupted than bernies' literal honeymoon in the ussr, especially when this never even reached trump. this took up 2 points by the way, and the one right after is literally another invitation declined, so it falls equally flat. 5) Cohen askes for help building the trump tower from the kremlin. Ok. This is about trump tower, the assertion means nothing unless there is some manner of event during the building of the trump tower, where trump decided to step in and ask for kremlin help with the actual election (we actually have dirt on his opponent at the time asking for this very thing with ukraine, so it's not like they couldn't have found dirt) 6) The rest all go on pretty close to like this. They make assertions on events that were absolutely normal at the time, and lightly admit near the end, that either nothing occurred in the end, or the requests were clearly declined. some exceptions, but the main rule is exactly that. "Emin [Agalarov, a Russian pop star represented by Goldstone] just called and asked me to contact you with something very interesting." that was the first thing stated. in other words, a British producer with a Russian client contacted trump jr to hand him some info. Wonder why nobody tried t hit him with British collusion charges, considering the third party initiator was not even Russian. If I, a third party, offer somebody a service, for nothing at all, and they say they'd love it, that does not make a collusion argument, especially when the third party is nowhere near the level of connection that they were asserted to be, and the cash itself is unsolicited. That said, https://reason.com/2019/06/13/is-accepting-information-about-a-political-opponent-from-a-foreigner-an-assault-on-our-democracy/ there is ample precedent for politicians to accept info on their opponents, from anywhere they can find it. On top of that, as Muller says, verbal communication would be defensible under the 1st amendment, on the basis that a basic discussion on the right to hear info (so long as there is no compensation), is by no means illegal. Call it what you like, but there are any number of ways to break that meeting down, and there are as many in your favor as there are for mine, while mine can actually wield the 1st and 4th amendments at the same time. Fact is, there have been ample investigations, not a single one chose to try pushing this narrative, because by any chosen standard, you would either blanket burn several dozen politicians, or the 1st and 4th amendments would be able to break any attempt at creating a prosecution. Even the founding fathers had foreign assistance when fighting for the country. At worst, you could maybe argue that it would be fine-worthy. Especially considering https://www.uky.edu/electionlaw/analysis/foreign-contributions-us-elections there is evidence to suggest trump jr's "potential collusion" level was lower on the totem pole than 2 past presidents, and several president hopefuls. Your WP article won't let me in anymore, but to address your point Reagan was the president, in other words, he is absolutely capable of effecting change, and he didn't go there to join any cities, he went there to attend a summit where they were going to create treaties on restricting nuclear weapons, improving human rights, withdrawing troops, and cancelling propaganda attempts. they got that much done before Reagan stopped calling them an "evil empire" Bernie went before all that, and praises Russia for giving him the kgb edited version of Russian life. https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/21/i-lived-in-soviet-russia-when-bernie-sanders-visited-and-hes-a-communist-dupe/ That's what the people who actually lived it, think of bernies views. Same as china often does, they gave the visitor the good seats, and brushed the rest under the rug. you can see america's poverty just by turning on the local news, bernie was actively reveling in the high life, with the lower lives kicked under the rug. Reagan went there to give the people human rights, bernie went there to tout the glories of of their architecture. One only gave them praise past actually implementing change, the other was really just there, doing little more than touring. Of course they have different motivations, one likes capitalism, and touts as much. The other likes socialism, and touts as much. One just got through several years of investigation, and came through clean, the other gets a free pass with no "thorough" investigation. Yeah, you see them differently alright. it's called TDS because you have yet to even attempt to give trump the same benefits that you have given bernie. I have pointed this out several times, and while i have given Bernie the same benefit of the doubt that i give trump despite trump actually making it through a literal investigation, you do no such thing for trump. See the difference? "These people need help, and we have this much help we can send them immediately" "No, we refuse to send this help till you add this fluff" Is exactly what happened. https://fox6now.com/2020/04/09/democrats-stall-president-trumps-250b-business-virus-aid-package/ The bill could have been passed unanimously, and neither party had a reason to hinder the support from going out (though admittedly there was a republican that was liable to force them all to be there as well, but as wrong as he was, in his case, it was solely to have them all acting in person). As for diversity quotas, what exactly would you call using "relief for minority owned businesses" to hold up a unanimous vote? Aren't they already businesses? Are they affected by the virus? If both of these are true, then there is zero reason to use that as a reason to block the bill. The money was already going to be increased greatly, by almost 300 billion if i recall, if the money is not handed out to anybody who has been affected, then that would be enough basis already to make the claim that they were overlooked, adding in an additional fluff clause is exactly what i said, nothing ore than a diversity quota. if they own a small business, they they are already covered, that is the fact of the matter, and their delay of the bill over this issue, when they could literally have passed this, had money flowing, and then drafted the rest, is a clearly political move. fact is, they are not, and were never going to be able to cover everything at once, them blocking this bill, delays help that could already be heading out, while adding pointless fluff that the original bill. Look at this this way "let's get money to people" vs "Let's get money to minority people" are minorities not people? are minority businesses not businesses? if they need the money, then they already had ample grounds to get what they needed. that is the problem. they halted aid that could already be going out, for nothing better than social justice reasons. they could add more money to the next wave, they chose not to. this shouldn't even be an argument, the time they wasted adding extra fluff, is time being added to the people's waiting. minority businesses, and workers overall, are more harmed by this delay, then they would be by the bill as it was. I meant the witnesses, that was my bad. I made an incorrect claim when i said it was republicans blocked, they themselves weren't blocked, it was republican witnesses, Republicans were indeed allowed into the hearings, but the democrats had hours to question their list of people, while republicans were wholly blocked from questioning their list of people. that was my mistake. Republicans were shut down by the majority even when they had the right to argue appeals, or to call witnesses. This was still an unprecedented action, and ignored the rights of the minority party. That is a massive part of the reason that the senate blocked witnesses. they claimed to have "a mountain of evidence" and yet couldn't even build a case, even though they were the only ones allowed witnesses. When forced to play on equal grounds, they got done the same way they did the republicans in the house. Then trump roasted them on it in the acquittal speech. My bad on that mistake though. The movement of quotations annoys me because it slyly moves the goalposts. Reread the quotes i placed, and then think about how they each look when taken outside the discussion. He said it's "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." he said it "might be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine." That's how easy it is to take quotes out of contexts. I happen to be looking at it through the lawyer-speak lens though. One is a call of certainty, that is quoted can wholly leave behind the proper context. the other is the whole comment, with proper spacing, so it cannot be dragged out of context on purpose or by accident. It's also not an assumption that they added or changed things either. The fact is, the article is listed as being either posted, or updated on the 10th, yet you posted your comment on the 9th. That is ample reason to suspect an edit of the article. Me not knowing what or how they changed it is because they added no further explanation aside from it being edited. I was going to leave the rest of my objections out, but let me fire further upon the article since that wasn't enough for you: The combination of chloroquine plus zinc as been proven to be effective by independent users across the globe by this point in time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVs_EWVCVPc doctors all across the globe have been using the drug on patients who have declined in health, and the Hydroxychloroquine combined with zinc has been getting results. It's a well known drug already. The zinc is shown to stop the RNA of the virus from mutating, while the Hydroxychloroquine is capable of opening cells and guiding the zinc to do its' work. The current consensus from doctors in the field using it is that it works when used under doctor supervision and administration. https://www.mysuncoast.com/2020/04/01/covid-patients-remarkable-recovery-prompts-florida-officials-consider-hhydroxychloroquine-treatment/ https://nypost.com/2020/04/02/antimalaria-drug-speeds-up-recovery-of-coronavirus-patients-study/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FczpFtz5q-0 The people writing the cnn article were trying to fire on an optimistic president over what is a literal nonissue. Fauci said effectively, the same things as trump, just in a less optimistic tone. One said it could be a game changer (which it is now proving to be) while the other said it is worth studying. The two statements do not oppose each other. "it needs further clinical testing, but it could be a game changer if proven true. it may work, it may not." see? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6kPUFseTWQ That's another breakdown of how the medication works, and explains how and why it's so effective. This treatment has already seen ample success. Enough worldwide that trying to slap it down at this point as ineffective is literally ignoring the fact that the doctors using it right now are wholly advocating using it on patients who have worsening conditions (so long as consent is given), and are seeing great results. Your article can't even deny as much, though it tries to play the narrative as if it could. Of course the drug can be dangerous, that is why it is only being administered by doctors. This is also not a cure, it is a symptom treatment, which is why further options still need to be researched. these are the facts, and none of them contract trumps claim that it could be a game changer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScdYrN3BWTM that is trumps views on the drug, he thinks it could be good, and understands that the drug has been around long enough that we know how to use it better than most other drugs in the field. it's inexpensive, it's well known, and it has been treating similar symptoms to the CCP virus for decades. the fact that we know so much about it is why it was placed on the table in the first place, and we have seen that while it does not cure everything, it has been shown to handle the symptoms, to at least some degree. To put this upfront on the charlottesville case, i was wrong, in the dumbest possible way lol. I was wrong here when i thought there were two crashes I was looking at the scope of the incident as if it were two incidents, where you have actually, and accurately pointed out that the two are the same incident. I looked at both videos as if they were completely different. So thanks for showing me that. That being said, I still stand by my argument that the accident was exactly that, an accident, and now i can at least make some sense of some loose ends that i was having in my point before. First up, the fact that so many people were already after him with weapons out. People were on him in less than a second, some literally swinging even while the car was moving, swinging on the vehicle with bats and the like. Exactly what kind of peaceful folks would be already swinging on the guy? this is one of several things that didn't mesh until i realized that the separate angles were actually the same thing. So yeah, definitely thanks for that bit. it actually helps out with my point to an extent, you can see that more than just a few folks were already after the guy, and he was clealy right to be in fear for his life, as several folks were already coming at him with bats and other weaponry. this is further evidence to my point that the guy was likely not in his right mind at the time, and was likely in fear for his life when he was driving. case in point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2yf0egWiRA&feature=youtu.be In this less tragic case, we see a crowd of these asshats attacking a man who was effectively minding his own business. then at 0:09 of this video, we see the same phenomenon that we saw in Charlottesville. The man hits the gas to get away from the absolute lunatics attacking his car, and they chase after him anyways. This is textbook antifa shit. In fact, the more i look into it, the more places i see it, and can tell that charlottseville was just that time it went south for them. (for more proof that they enjoy these tactics:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjGPmc7_PRIhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcaDO7SY4-4&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK5bh16CyGkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSc_7FJc-f0 Yes. I can keep going.) blocking the roads and attacking the drivers is what they do. After looking this far into it, as much as i believe "involuntary manslaughter" still applies, fact is, antifa does this extremely often, and the driver should not be responsible for the assholes that are attacking his vehicle. I'm starting to feel less sympathy for those of antifa who participate in this kind of behavior. Did you know that getting hit by a car can cause a heart attack? It's not a conspiracy theory, it is the literal term for what happened. Yes, getting hit by the car is likely what triggered it, but from her unhealthy lifestyle, she was clearly not built for that life. in fact, this is an image of her, https://i2.wp.com/www.occidentaldissent.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/1504665039863.png?w=267. She is clearly not healthy. And she is the only person who dies. so yeah, i stand by the point that her health is a large part of the reason she dies. Since i haven't said it for a while, as sad as the accident is, fact is, at worst this ought to be a manslaughter charge at best. The dude broke down crying at the fact that he killed someone in the initial estimate. we clearly see that he was being attacked readily, by the footage that we have of him during the incident. In my earlier post, i was confused for a bit on why there was only one report of a car accident, but thanks to you, i can now see that the guy was clearly getting attacked for most, if not all stages of the event, and as we see several times over, antifa is often the only ingredient needed for anything to get violent. Here we see antifa attacking the car, and whatever argument you may have for them here, it's not the first time, nor is it the last that we have seen them attacking innocent drivers. making the argument that they started it, all the more credible. The point i made in my previous post was one that was shown to you dozens of times over since 2016. we cited the sheer size of the two states in support of clinton, and compared districts that voted for trump, vs those that voted hillary. Not just me, but several others have done this as well. you, and many who have taken your side, simply did not acknowledge this. If you do now, ok, but it's not like we haven't been making the point for years. thing is, trump won in almost 3x the districts as hillary, yet somehow the popular vote was still won by her. if nohting else, that alone is evidence that the electoral college is doing its' job. Just keep in mind, i let you set the terms, so that you had no complaints about whatever the end outcome is. Remember that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted August 18, 2020 Report Share Posted August 18, 2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/bipartisan-senate-report-describes-2016-trump-campaign-eager-accept-help-n1237002 A bipartisan Senate report - and I must emphasize that it was bipartisan - details the Trump administration's obstruction of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation, and "painted a portrait of a Trump campaign eager to accept help from a foreign power in 2016." "The Senate report, the most detailed account to date of the Trump campaign's embrace of Russian election interference, also asserted that the allegations that Ukraine interfered in the election — which President Donald Trump perpetuated — originated with Russian intelligence agencies." That detail is also good. It's been very common to deflect any allegations against Trump with rather hollow whataboutisms that try to blame Ukraine instead. We know for a fact that it isn't actually about "proving" any guilt Ukraine supposedly bears, so much as just trying to shift the blame away from Russia. I know "Russia did it" has become an overused explanation, but it's really not that much of a stretch to say that Russia was responsible for allegations that conveniently took blame away from Russia. The typical partisan pushes have come up, though. Republicans claim that this proves there was no collusion, while Democrats claim that this does prove it occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted August 19, 2020 Report Share Posted August 19, 2020 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/senate-made-criminal-referral-trump-jr-bannon-kushner-two-others-n1237155?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma "The Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee made criminal referrals of Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner, Steve Bannon, Erik Prince and Sam Clovis to federal prosecutors in 2019, passing along their suspicions that the men may have misled the committee during their testimony" While no such investigation resulted from the referrals, that's likely because Barr buried this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Roxas Posted September 23, 2020 Report Share Posted September 23, 2020 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/hunter-biden-ukraine-report-republicans https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/sen-johnson-releases-findings-hunter-biden-probe-alleging-conflict-interest-n1240816 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/23/gop-senators-anti-biden-report-420362 The GOP have produced a report on Hunter Biden's position at Burisma that the right is only interested in to deflect on the most marginal of criticisms against Trump and his sons. It largely cites previously debunked theories and allegations and says that concerns were raised, but ultimately offers no evidence that Hunter's position affected U.S. policy. Unsurprisingly, this is yet another whataboutism from the right that has fallen flat on its face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.