This topic has been locked by a moderator.
I believe he’s entitled to a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers.
I also believe he’s done all of it, everything I’ve read makes the women’s accounts credible.
So I think he should go to jail. Eventually.
If you take my posts at face value rather than skittering around like I’m going to trap you somehow, confusion will disappear.
That actually makes it more confusing. I took your posts at face value and that’s how I came to the conclusion that you’re fishing for a specific response with most of them.
This doesn’t make sense to me. If I’m not demanding a specific response, reading it that way isn’t taking it at face value.
Would it somehow seem less tricky if I phrased my post to Frink as, “what does that have to do with anything?” Or is that kind of response tricky?
That would’ve made a lot more sense, actually. It would feel like less of a “gotchya.”
I don’t see a gotcha in me stating I don’t think something is relevant. Posing something as a question seems a better way of setting up some kind of gotcha, but that sounds silly too. To the extent I was unclear, I stated again I don’t see the relevance. That’s straightforward.
Sometimes I may be seeking to make a point and maybe get someone to see a different perspective (oh, the horror). But I think my posts are straightforward. Often Frink seems to think I’m saying something I’m not and his disbelief is weird.
It isn’t that you’re trying to get people to see a different perspective, it’s that you (seem to be) trying to get people to say something or allude to something so that you can then point out their contradictions or their hypocrisy. I don’t know what you’re up to, but it seems like it’s something like that.
Firstly it’s weird to focus on me and my supposed motivations (perilously close to the attempts by some to psychoanalyze members). Where I think there is a contradiction in positions I may state it. Just as any number of people in these threads do. If you spot a contradiction in something I’ve said somewhere (which wouldn’t surprise me) I’d answer it rather than wonder what’s wrong with you.
Here it was really just a reaction to Frink pulling out the, “but what about these guys I don’t like,” card.
I don’t think it was a card. I’d hate to presume to speak for someone else, but I doubt that Frink feels so strongly about the New York AG that he felt the need to redirect the attention toward someone else.
I thought it odd and stated so.
I’d expect someone to think it odd if I offered the same kind of nonsequitur. Maybe that person would state it doesn’t make sense, maybe they’d pose it as a question, maybe they’d jump to questioning my motives. My answer would probably be the same regardless, explaining why it makes sense. Then they could believe it or not.
I don’t see how it’s more complicated.
The blue elephant in the room.
Firstly it’s weird to focus on me and my supposed motivations (perilously close to the attempts by some to psychoanalyze members).
Really? There’s no comparison.
I believe he’s entitled to a fair trial in front of a jury of his peers.
I also believe he’s done all of it, everything I’ve read makes the women’s accounts credible.
So I think he should go to jail. Eventually.
I’d be up for burning his house down if you want to join me. 😉
The Person in Question
Firstly it’s weird to focus on me and my supposed motivations (perilously close to the attempts by some to psychoanalyze members).
Really? There’s no comparison.
Yeah, it’s not psychoanalyzing. It’s just the interpretation that makes the most sense to me. In fact it’s actually the only way that your posts make sense to me. If anything, I’m kind of giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there actually is motivation behind your posts.
The Person in Question
Firstly it’s weird to focus on me and my supposed motivations (perilously close to the attempts by some to psychoanalyze members).
Really? There’s no comparison.
Yeah, it’s not psychoanalyzing. It’s just the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.
That sounds like the same defense we heard before. Depends I guess on how you dress up the argument. The offensiveness isn’t much different.
In fact it’s actually the only way that your posts make sense to me. If anything, I’m kind of giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that there actually is motivation behind your posts.
I suggest reading my posts without worrying about a secret endgame. It’s really so bizarre to me. If you’re ever curious about a reason for a post, ask. I’ve asked you about the motivation of some of your posts. And I don’t recall any kind of gotcha moment coming from that.
Sometimes my motivation is curiosity, sometimes disagreement, sometimes humorous.
Assumptions will get in the way of understanding.
The blue elephant in the room.
I ask for clarification sometimes and get even more confused by the response. It’s easier to not ask.
Yeah, same. The reason that I assume you’re up to some kind of word game or mind game with your posts is because they honestly make no sense to me and the reasoning for posting a lot of the stuff you post also makes no sense to me. The prospect of you fishing for a specific response in order to prove some point is actually me giving you the benefit of the doubt because it’s the only way that I can think of to make sense of your posts. Otherwise I’d just have to assume that you literally aren’t aware of most of the conversations you’re participating in.
The Person in Question
Yeah, same. The reason that I assume you’re up to some kind of word game or mind game with your posts is because they honestly make no sense to me and the reasoning for posting a lot of the stuff you post also makes no sense to me. The prospect of you fishing for a specific response in order to prove some point is actually me giving you the benefit of the doubt because it’s the only way that I can think of to make sense of your posts. Otherwise I’d just have to assume that you literally aren’t aware of most of the conversations you’re participating in.
I don’t know how to help with the confusion. On some issues you and I are coming from very different places but I don’t know what has been unintelligible. Sometimes maybe it’s just about accepting someone could actually hold the view that they say, such as me thinking Frink’s comment was an odd nonsequitur. Obviously you don’t have to agree, but you should be able to understand.
Anyway, as they say, nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion!
The blue elephant in the room.
The blue elephant in the room.
Cohen appears to be in serious trouble. The headlines seem to be blaring “Russian Oligarch Paid Cohen Half a Million Dollars”, which makes good copy but doesn’t really quite get there. He’s in way more doodoo than that. The Russian Oligarch in question was under US sanctions at the time of the payment, and Cohen appears to have misled the bank. And this single payment was just one of about 4.5 million dollars of suspicious transactions on this particular account. And this all happened while Trump was President and Cohen was acting as his personal attorney. He is likely open to federal and state-level charges on these matters (California).
No wonder the National Enquirer has gone all anti-Cohen. If he has a single functioning brain cell, he’s flipped already.
Do you have a link? What I see was that the payments occurred before the Russian(Vekselberg) was put on the sanctions list. And the Russian link, is that a NY company, whose biggest client is a company controlled by Vekselberg, gave money. There may be dots to connect, but at least on those facts there doesn’t appear to be a sanctions violation.
Possible bank fraud, campaign finance violations, and especially any evidence that the campaign knowingly took money from Moscow…would be serious as you say.
The blue elephant in the room.
Yeah, same. The reason that I assume you’re up to some kind of word game or mind game with your posts is because they honestly make no sense to me and the reasoning for posting a lot of the stuff you post also makes no sense to me. The prospect of you fishing for a specific response in order to prove some point is actually me giving you the benefit of the doubt because it’s the only way that I can think of to make sense of your posts. Otherwise I’d just have to assume that you literally aren’t aware of most of the conversations you’re participating in.
I don’t know how to help with the confusion. On some issues you and I are coming from very different places but I don’t know what has been unintelligible. Sometimes maybe it’s just about accepting someone could actually hold the view that they say, such as me thinking Frink’s comment was an odd nonsequitur. Obviously you don’t have to agree, but you should be able to understand.
I want to be clear here, I don’t know what your opinions are on anything we’ve ever discussed so it isn’t that I don’t believe you.
The Person in Question
“My favorite meat is hot dog, by the way. That is my favorite meat,” he told a gathering of supporters as they joined him recently for a casual dinner organized by his campaign. “My second favorite meat is hamburger. And, everyone says, oh, don’t you prefer steak? It’s like, I know steaks are great, but I like hot dog best, and I like hamburger next best.”
The blue elephant in the room.
“My favorite meat is hot dog, by the way. That is my favorite meat,” he told a gathering of supporters as they joined him recently for a casual dinner organized by his campaign. “My second favorite meat is hamburger. And, everyone says, oh, don’t you prefer steak? It’s like, I know steaks are great, but I like hot dog best, and I like hamburger next best.”
Is that a real quote? I read that somewhere and I thought it was from the Onion, but I guess I don’t know anymore.
“My favorite meat is hot dog, by the way. That is my favorite meat,” he told a gathering of supporters as they joined him recently for a casual dinner organized by his campaign. “My second favorite meat is hamburger. And, everyone says, oh, don’t you prefer steak? It’s like, I know steaks are great, but I like hot dog best, and I like hamburger next best.”
Is that a real quote? I read that somewhere and I thought it was from the Onion, but I guess I don’t know anymore.
I know, I googled twice and I’m still not convinced.
The blue elephant in the room.
Family values my ass!
The Person in Question
Do you have a link? What I see was that the payments occurred before the Russian(Vekselberg) was put on the sanctions list. And the Russian link, is that a NY company, whose biggest client is a company controlled by Vekselberg, gave money. There may be dots to connect, but at least on those facts there doesn’t appear to be a sanctions violation.
Possible bank fraud, campaign finance violations, and especially any evidence that the campaign knowingly took money from Moscow…would be serious as you say.
Looks like either I misread or the sources have been updated. You can never tell these days. So yes, he was under sanctions, but it doesn’t seem that the payment we’re talking about was while he was under sanctions. Meanwhile further digging appears to reveal Cohen’s shell company was getting large cash payments from whomever Trump was meeting with that week. i.e. Trump meets with Novartis’ CEO. At the same time, Novartis pays $400,000 to a shell company with no staff or resources of any sort, run by Cohen. Maybe coincidence. Also coincidence with Korea Aerospace Industries, up for a multibillion dollar military contract. AT&T’s in there too, but frankly they bribe everyone contribute to both parties. But how should one classify political contributions that don’t go to a PAC or campaign, but to the shell company of a personal lawyer? Hmm, campaign finance laws are tricky. EDIT: Wait, it’s “consulting” – that may actually be a big enough loophole to hide behind most of the time, wonder if it’ll work this time?
Also:
Adam Schiff just said that members of the House Intelligence Committee were interested in Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg, but committee leadership wouldn’t allow anybody to look into him.
Family values my ass!
Purposely inflicting additional emotional trauma on kids already in a bad situation? This is a new level of movie villain mustache twirling f*cking evil.
Where were you in '77?
Oh yeah. Republicans are an antichrist party.
The Person in Question
Oh yeah. Republicans are an antichrist party.
No, they’re the Party of Trump.
…oh.
Oh yeah. Republicans are an antichrist party.
Now see here! My dad may be Satan and Mom was a jackal, but don’t lump me in with those guys! Even I’m not that evil!
Where were you in '77?
I love Satan and will love the Antichrist when he comes. I’m just saying they’re antichrist. Not the Antichrist!
The Person in Question
Does anyone else get the feeling that America is in the midst of a political party realignment?
Now that everything that the (largely Republican) FBI does is labeled by the right as the ‘Deep State’, and the Republican congress and Executive branch has largely abandoned the traditions of those offices, it feels like Republicans have become deeply anti-traditional governance. Now Democrats are rushing to its defense, invoking the Constitution, giving governmental institutions the benefit of the doubt.
Similarly, the Democratic party is now more firmly the party of the educated elites, whereas the Republican party is courting more people who would otherwise be politically uninvolved.
You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)
The Republican Party is just so openly anti-reality at this point that I wouldn’t dignify its attitude as being aligned with anything.
The Person in Question