It wasn't a hoax

I don't care about the reason; it's beyond the point. Wall Street is the ruling class. Democrats and Joe Scarborough are a part of the ruling class, which are backed up by Wall Street. That was my point. You agree with it. End of argument on that score.

What are you talking about? Do you not read your own arguments? You mentioned Rockefeller, and said that men like Rockefeller were members of the ruling class, or as you said, "Ruling Class." You wrote that in post 428. And my counter to that was that we are living in twenty-first-century America; and Scarborough is in the ruling class, not Rockefeller, who was in the ruling class in late-nineteenth-century / early-twentieth-century America.

How? How is Scarborough a conservative? First explain what a conservative is. What is the framework of conservatism? Once you have eludicdated on the framework, please, then, argue how Scarborough fits that model. And then explain to me how a conservative vocally supports Biden, who vocally was talking about expanding the size of government during his presidential campaign, and has done so in his presidency, which is completely anathema to true-blue conservativism.

Jeeze, you are all over the place in this argument. First, in post 428, you say, "For over a century, Republicans were from the Ruling Class, i.e., Buckley, Rockefeller, Bush, Wallstreet, etc." Now in post 446, you don't even known what "ruling class" is? Your mode of argument is quite schizophrenic.

 

Are you contending Trump paid for the release of the material by Wikileaks that Russia hacked?

 

If the it was the Russians who gave the material to WIKI .. something Assange denies -- but if it was .. I highly doubt it was paid for. If it was from some other party .. then may very well have been paid for .. and the payments could well have come from Trump - and good for Trump.

Why wouldn't Trump pay to have the dirty deeds of Hillary released .. Which candidate would not do such a thing ? - all perfectly legal

 

Would it be legal for Trump to pay (I'm not saying he did....there's no evidence of it) for the release of illegally obtained material? What dirty deeds?

In the last couple weeks, people from President Donald Trump to supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders to top Republican operatives have begun to loudly proclaim that the Democratic presidential primary is being “rigged” against Sanders in favor of former Vice President Joe Biden.

The conspiracy theory is that “establishment” members of the Democratic National Committee and liberal media elites are so terrified that Democratic voters might elect Sanders, a democratic socialist, to be the party’s nominee that they’re actively conspiring to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Importantly, the Sanders campaign itself doesn’t make this case, but it’s an increasingly popular narrative — hashtags like #RiggedDNC and #RiggedPrimary were even trending on Twitter this week.

But experts who’ve studied actual rigged elections in places like Russia say the notion that the Democratic primary is being “rigged” is completely bogus — and they warn that perpetuating this narrative could deeply harm the legitimacy of the election, and faith in US democracy itself.
https://www.vox.com/2020/3/6/21167031/democratic-primary-sanders-biden-election-rigging

 

Yes it is legal - ruled so in Dem's vs Trump and the Russians .. but why don't you know this as It was cited to you -- by me - many times, .. and even if you didn't why would you not be for freedom of speech/press/information ?

Hillaries and the DNC dirty deeds are detailed in the Wiki - leak .. Getting the questions for the debate . proir to the debate - . DNC shinnanigans .. for which the DNC later released a formal apology.

 

Give me the post #. "Getting the questions for the debate" Like this? https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-roger-ailes-trump-megyn-kelly-questions-2019-3

 

Was long time ago .. hammered this thing into the ground . destroying the arguments from the left .. I told you the case .. Dems vs Trump and the Russians .. thats like .. the name of it .. or very similar.. the big case .. you know .. "The Big One" Court .. a Judge - lambasting the other side .. stating directly .. NOT ILLEGAL -- free speech -- protected speech ... as it should be.

What's your deal anyway .. never mind what megyn kelly has to say .. why the fk are you not for free speech .. its disgusting this dark path the left has gone down .. now the Anti Civil Liberties Union ..

 

Refresh my memory, what argument specifically?

 

Sorry, but I'm not that interested.

 

I just want to remind everyone that the Trump-Russia collusion story was a hoax.

 

And it remains an unverified hoax from the getgo.

 

Sloppy work, hoax, whatever.

 

"Hoax" is the word you are looking for. It was a hoax.

 

I don't read minds.

 

Yep

thanks for fixing the typo.

 

Basically your counter arguments rests on the following points you have made:

1. Frump isn't credible.
2. Frum is wrong.

YOu haven't provided any evidence as to why he is not credible, or to why he is wrong, you base
your opinion that he is wrong because he is not credible, but that is circular reasoning.

my argument is

1. Frum is credible.
2. Frum is right.

However, your criticism that I didn't detail why I believe he is right, is fair criticism.

I will do that for you, soon.

However, any counter by you that he is not credible will not hold water, that's just an opinion and not a valid counter argument.

Later.

 

That argument that Trump having some part in the release of the Wiki data was criminal .. .. all the cry's from the left claiming that the release of this information "Harmed our electoral process"

here ...

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/31/jud...-against-trump-campaign-russia-wikileaks.html

Think the link goes to the actual case .. which you can read for yourself .. as I did.

 

Hmm.. ok, from the Frum article in the Atlantic. He claims..

1. Early in 2016, President Putin ordered an influence operation to “harm the Clinton Campaign, tarnish an expected Clinton presidential administration, help the Trump Campaign after Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee, and undermine the U.S. democratic process.” Again, that’s from the Senate Intelligence Committee report.

Nope. There are active indictments that demonstrate that the Special prosecutor doesn't believe this, and that it was actually the Clinton campaign, and well documented transactions that have all now specifically repudiated what David wrote here.

1. The Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos “likely learned about the Russian active measures campaign as early as April 2016,” the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote. In May 2016, Papadopoulos indiscreetly talked with Alexander Downer, then the Australian high commissioner to the United Kingdom, about Russia’s plot to intervene in the U.S. election to hurt Clinton and help Trump. Downer described the conversation in a report to his government. By long-standing agreement, Australia shares intelligence with the U.S. government. It was Papadopoulos’s blurt to Downer that set in motion the FBI investigation of Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential election, a revelation authoritatively reported more than three years ago.

As noted, again by the Special counsel, this was both an illegal operation by the FBI, and there are folks indicted for this action. Frum ignores those facts to continue to never Trump.

And on and on it goes where Frum effectively demonstrates that he shoved his head up his own butt and won't hear the actual facts.

Those are just two examples. Frum is a butt hurt dude who couldn't be trusted with facts, or the truth in real life. He's continuing to peddle a lie, and you're here cheerleading for it. This is the part of the conversation where you just need to apologize for wasting everyone's time with your behavior.

 

They are not the same.

 

Very much appreciate you doing that. Unfortunately, for you,........

Judge John Koetl, in his ruling Tuesday, said that although the “primary wrongdoer in this alleged criminal enterprise is undoubtedly the Russian Federation,” a lawsuit against that government is barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

“The Russian Federation cannot be sued in the courts of the United States for governmental actions, subject to certain limited exceptions not present in this case, just as the United States government generally cannot be sued in courts abroad for its actions,” Koetl wrote in his ruling in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.

I'm sure I don't have to spell out why you were wrong.

 

Yes, but I don't care. It's not worth my time.

 

He didn't. He ruled that Russia has immunity from the suit, “The Russian Federation cannot be sued in the courts of the United States for governmental actions..................yet referred to it as an "alleged criminal enterprise." Once again, thanks for providing the link.

 

We are not talking about the Russians and responsibility for the hack --- nor the Judges Ruling in that respect. We are talking about the ruling with respect to Trump - and his ruling that releasing this information to Wiki .. was Freedom of Speech.

How is it that you not understand that we are talking about the criminality of Trump .. ot the criminality of the Hackers - despit me clarifying this a number of times. What is this deflection tactic .. where you pretend we are discussing something that we are not - in a desperate attempt to divert and deflect from the demonstrable fact .. that the Mueller investigation was a kangaroo political clown show..

.

.

 

It would appear that there may be another shoe to drop. Maybe more.

Durham vs. Horowitz: Tension Grips the FBI Reckoning

Aaron Mate, RCInvestigations

 

As a rule I tend to stop reading when the horseshit gets so thick, when reality has become so obfuscated, when the author's motivation becomes so clear, there's nothing to be gained from continuing. I got through the first paragraph.