ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , internet incidents , Trump controversies , US-Russia relations , vladimir putin

Reply
Old 11th January 2017, 08:45 AM   #721
crescent
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
As such, Trump may end up as the first President to be impeached and thrown out of office during his first year in office.
Don't be naive. The Republicans have majorities in both houses and will never, ever, ever, seriously investigate on of their own.

I am more convinced than ever the the Republican party dislikes democracy and would form some sort of oligarchy-based junta if they thought they could get away with it.

But clearly, they will never seriously investigate or impeach one of their own. Chaffetz is gearing up for more investigations of Hillary, but will never go after a GOP president.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:49 AM   #722
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,828
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? Such a law wouldn't pass SCOTUS.
No one would have standing to bring it before SCOTUS. We currently have laws protecting us from searches without warrants. The government ignores this rule. We can't challenge their behavior, because none of us can prove that it happened and that we were harmed by it.

Anyone alleging torture would have a similar problem: how do they prove they were tortured?
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:49 AM   #723
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? Such a law wouldn't pass SCOTUS.
Crossbows position is far more speculative than mine om what would happen if it came before the court. Case law absolutely supports that laws passed void any conflicting pieces from earlier treaties. No specific requirement to withdraw from a treaty exists even if the treaty says it does.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 08:56 AM   #724
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
The Wikipedia consensus seems to be on my side. There seems little controversy there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

Quote:
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:04 AM   #725
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 60,844
Originally Posted by Newtons Bit View Post
No one would have standing to bring it before SCOTUS. We currently have laws protecting us from searches without warrants. The government ignores this rule. We can't challenge their behavior, because none of us can prove that it happened and that we were harmed by it.

Anyone alleging torture would have a similar problem: how do they prove they were tortured?
I was refering to the law itself, not the practice.
__________________
"What is best in life?"
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:04 AM   #726
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,736
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Don't be naive. The Republicans have majorities in both houses and will never, ever, ever, seriously investigate on of their own.

I am more convinced than ever the the Republican party dislikes democracy and would form some sort of oligarchy-based junta if they thought they could get away with it.

But clearly, they will never seriously investigate or impeach one of their own. Chaffetz is gearing up for more investigations of Hillary, but will never go after a GOP president.
Indeed! You may be absolutely correct; but as for myself, I am still a bit concerned.

To explain, I find the Watergate example to be most appropriate. In that case Nixon won easily won re-election and that wide margin of victory provided him with quite a few congressional supporters (even several Democrats) when his second term started.

But, as the Watergate case unfolded, gradually Nixon lost more and more and more support until there was virtually no congressional support (either Democrat or no Republican) for him.

If it turns out that the Trump campaign was in cahoots with the Russian hacking, then that would be bad for Trump himself regardless of which party in charge of the Congress but I doubt that it would rise to the level of impeachment.

And if it turns out that Trump himself somehow supported the Russian hacking, then it is quite possible that Trump could be removed from office (either through the impeachment process or his own resignation).

In either case, Trump is going to have a real hornetís nest on his hands.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:09 AM   #727
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,736
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Crossbows position is far more speculative than mine om what would happen if it came before the court. Case law absolutely supports that laws passed void any conflicting pieces from earlier treaties. No specific requirement to withdraw from a treaty exists even if the treaty says it does.
Since your positions are so wrong that you even cannot defend them, then stop your characterizations of my positions.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:23 AM   #728
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,828
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I was refering to the law itself, not the practice.
I know. I'm saying that SCOTUS would never actually hear the case on whether it was constitutional, or in violation of our treaty requirements. Someone has to be be provably wronged by such a law first, and that would be nigh impossible to prove.
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:24 AM   #729
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 16,889
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
<snip>

And here's another bombshell:
Quote:
The Guardian has learned that the FBI applied for a warrant from the foreign intelligence surveillance (Fisa) court over the summer in order to monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials. The Fisa court turned down the application asking FBI counter-intelligence investigators to narrow its focus. According to one report, the FBI was finally granted a warrant in October, but that has not been confirmed, and it is not clear whether any warrant led to a full investigation.

Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:30 AM   #730
Newtons Bit
Philosopher
 
Newtons Bit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 9,828
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?
It used to be absurdly rare. Obama promised more protections for civil rights after the Snowden leaks, so maybe they're actually working...
__________________
"Structural Engineering is the art of molding materials we do not wholly understand into shapes we cannot precisely analyze so as to understand forces we cannot really assess in such a way that the community at large has no reason to suspect the extent of our own ignorance." James E Amrhein
Newtons Bit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:34 AM   #731
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
And those people were wrong to say those things then, also.
What people? Woodward and Bernstein? Deep Throat?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:35 AM   #732
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Non skeptical thinkers will be right sometimes. That doesn't mean their approach is reasonable.
Did you read the intelligence report or are you just going with Trump's superlative claim the news media is lying?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:41 AM   #733
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
Since your positions are so wrong that you even cannot defend them, then stop your characterizations of my positions.
The precedent of the head money cases stands. There is no case law that points to courts making an exception to certain treaties.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:43 AM   #734
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
What people? Woodward and Bernstein? Deep Throat?
Anybody that argued the president directed it based on a hunch rather than after actual evidence appearing.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:44 AM   #735
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
Don't be naive. The Republicans have majorities in both houses and will never, ever, ever, seriously investigate on of their own.
Don't forget the "never Trump" arm of the GOP which would love to trade him for Pence.

Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I am more convinced than ever the the Republican party dislikes democracy and would form some sort of oligarchy-based junta if they thought they could get away with it.

But clearly, they will never seriously investigate or impeach one of their own. Chaffetz is gearing up for more investigations of Hillary, but will never go after a GOP president.
They aren't going to waste any more time/resources on Clinton.

1) If we go by the fact the Clinton Foundation has an A rating by an independent charity watch, aka no corruption, and, had there been evidence of a quid pro quo it would have come out long ago.

2) More importantly, it was never anything but a political witch hunt and Clinton no longer poses any threat to win the POTUS election. Thus the motive for the witch hunt is gone.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:46 AM   #736
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,736
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
The precedent of the head money cases stands. There is no case law that points to courts making an exception to certain treaties.
So what?

Nobody has said otherwise.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:48 AM   #737
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?
I too thought it unusual, but I would think asking to investigate a candidate for POTUS might have just a bit of a higher bar than your usual FISa request.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:49 AM   #738
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Anybody that argued the president directed it based on a hunch rather than after actual evidence appearing.
So you never read the intelligence report directly. Got it.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:51 AM   #739
Delphic Oracle
Graduate Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,149
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
Isn't that a bit unusual.

Does the FBI generally have trouble getting surveillance warrants approved from that court?
These people weren't brown, so naturally there is a higher burden of proof required.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:51 AM   #740
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Crossbow View Post
So what?

Nobody has said otherwise.
More than one person here has brought up the Geneva convention to a post where I said congress hypothetically takes action to legalize torture. Argumemon specifically said "Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? " That would be an explicit contradiction to existing precedent. People do seem to be saying otherwise.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 11th January 2017 at 09:55 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:53 AM   #741
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So you never read the intelligence report directly. Got it.
? That wasn't the question asked. I was asked about Watergate.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:55 AM   #742
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Trump's news conference:

OMG, I guess it's what I expected, it's just that hearing blatant Newspeak is hard to believe. Subtle Newspeak, yes, but outright blatant Newspeak? I guess that's Conway's and Bannon's advice.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 09:56 AM   #743
Manger Douse
Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
Russian psychologists have deep research into Anglo fascination with excrements, and help available. Ask John McCain for the number of Peet Poomagniskoff.
Aren't you German?
Manger Douse is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:04 AM   #744
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
? That wasn't the question asked. I was asked about Watergate.
Do you know how silly that sounds. Nixon controlled the slush fund, there's no reason he didn't know generally what was going on, or else why cover it up if he wasn't connected? Big deal, maybe Nixon didn't know the details.

Do you think Nixon didn't know about [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/opinion/30krogh.html]the break in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office?

You are defending a convicted man on some excuse he didn't know the details.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:07 AM   #745
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Do you know how silly that sounds. Nixon controlled the slush fund, there's no reason he didn't know generally what was going on, or else why cover it up if he wasn't connected? Big deal, maybe Nixon didn't know the details.

Do you think Nixon didn't know about [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/30/opinion/30krogh.html]the break in of Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office?

You are defending a convicted man on some excuse he didn't know the details.
That is not what I said. There was a period of time between the break in and evidence surfacing linking Nixon to it. In that time there were people that asserted he was linked to it. That was not a skeptical position to take. The fact it turned out to be true does not mean they took a reasonable position in that window.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:09 AM   #746
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Typical Bannon style: Trump claiming BuzzFeed is the guilty party. BuzzFeed rep is hammering Trump back, Trump won't answer his question but I think BuzzFeed guy made his point.


Correction, it wasn't a BuzzFeed reporter calling Trump out, it was a CNN reporter.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 11th January 2017 at 10:22 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:10 AM   #747
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,768
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I asked first, if you want to play that silly game. Your question is irrelevant. That some people sense corruption doesn't mean that the corruption exists, or that it applies to a completely different agency. You're appealing to popularity.
So you reject people have this perception, do you also reject that perception showing itself through the vote against shillery?


Quote:
You stated that the "community" was corrupt as a statement of fact. That presupposes knowledge, unless you now want to argue that you pulled that from your nether regions.
There is a sense? A perception? Of course you made the often made mistake of putting words in my mouth, revealing once again your confusion.
Quote:
I also find it ironic that you try to go the "plausible deniability" route after so much railing against the government for engaging in such shady behaviours.
I'm not denying anything, you're just having problems with understanding words because you so badly need your narrative.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:10 AM   #748
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
That is not what I said. There was a period of time between the break in and evidence surfacing linking Nixon to it....
Only if you weren't paying attention at the time.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:11 AM   #749
logger
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,768
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Typical Bannon style: Trump claiming BuzzFeed is the guilty party. BuzzFeed rep is hammering Trump back, Trump won't answer his question but I think BuzzFeed guy made his point.
He has your side in the palm of his hand!

Yeah he got labeled fake news, good job!
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:12 AM   #750
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
What if Trump gave a news conference and no one came?

If they figured out all he's doing is dissing anyone who criticizes him and blatantly lying about everything else, but the news media can't help themselves. Like Charlie Brown, the news media keeps thinking Lucy won't pull the football away this time.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 11th January 2017 at 10:13 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:12 AM   #751
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Only if you weren't paying attention at the time.
If there is evidence then it is a reasonable position. If you are arguing there isn't evidence but "paying attention" that is unreasonable.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 11th January 2017 at 10:14 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:13 AM   #752
Donal
Illuminator
 
Donal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,436
How does this reflect on Pence as well? Wouldn't it also taint him as well? Is Paul Ryan about to back into the Oval Office?
Donal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:17 AM   #753
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by Donal View Post
How does this reflect on Pence as well? Wouldn't it also taint him as well? Is Paul Ryan about to back into the Oval Office?
It should, but you can bet (as I said earlier) the GOP run 'committees' will make sure to leave Pence out of it. They want a believable candidate. Get rid of POTUS, the public accepts the VPOTUS. But I don't think the public would accept a purely appointed by the Senate Paul Ryan POTUS when Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes.

OTOH, you may be on to something there.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 11th January 2017 at 10:19 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:21 AM   #754
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
CNN is siding with Trump that the intelligence report was all uncorroborated and BuzzFeed shouldn't have put it out there.

Excuse me Mr Tapper, but who makes you arbiter of releasing the actual report?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:21 AM   #755
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Jake tapper reporting that there was a different Michael Cohen in Prague. Different country of citizenship, same birth year.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jaketappe...87673961287681
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:23 AM   #756
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
CNN is siding with Trump that the intelligence report was all uncorroborated and BuzzFeed shouldn't have put it out there.

Excuse me Mr Tapper, but who makes you arbiter of releasing the actual report?
It should be released. If this is floating around the upper echelons of government, I want to know. I'm adult enough to understand unsubstantiated reports still have impact on government.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:26 AM   #757
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Let's look at the known facts:

Only negative stuff on Clinton was released to Wikileaks.

Tillerson and Manafort have ties to Russia.

Manafort got 12 million dollars that looked like a payoff be it a bribe or a reward.

Trump has been praising Russia and dissing NATO for a while now.

That's a lot of smoke coming from that gun even without the intelligence report.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:29 AM   #758
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 59,485
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Jake tapper reporting that there was a different Michael Cohen in Prague. Different country of citizenship, same birth year.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jaketappe...87673961287681
It will be interesting to see who the other Michael Cohen is. Unfortunately, it gives Trump a distraction from the bulk of the report.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:32 AM   #759
BobTheCoward
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 6,349
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Let's look at the known facts:

Only negative stuff on Clinton was released to Wikileaks.

Tillerson and Manafort have ties to Russia.

Manafort got 12 million dollars that looked like a payoff be it a bribe or a reward.

Trump has been praising Russia and dissing NATO for a while now.

That's a lot of smoke coming from that gun even without the intelligence report.
Not great smoke. Manaforts payments were 4 years ago. Trump has been in favor of reproachment with Russia since the 80s. Even close ties to criminals does not really support that coordination with the criminals on specific crimes occurred.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th January 2017, 10:32 AM   #760
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 10,736
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
More than one person here has brought up the Geneva convention to a post where I said congress hypothetically takes action to legalize torture. Argumemon specifically said "Are you aware that constitutional amendments and treaties are made in order to prevent such laws from ever coming into effects? " That would be an explicit contradiction to existing precedent. People do seem to be saying otherwise.
Once again, you are not making sense.

Everyone has written coherent posts to you. So if you cannot understand those posts, then you need to ask them for clarification.
__________________
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.