You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:We need to establish no evidence and refusing to consider ANY evidence. There's plenty of evidence. It's kind of fitting that a right wing parrot keeps repeating the same thing over and over...
Says the guy who's repeating far left talking points and can't point to any evidence to support his fantasy.
The second anyone comes forward from the intel committees or intelligence agencies and says "I have proof and will be sharing said information immediately with my peers before alerting the public" I'll eagerly listen. If Trump worked with Russia, he should be shot. But MO ONE has done that. McCain explicitly said there's no evidence supporting claims Trump coordinated with Russia. You continue to "know" what really happened in the same way my mom knows my dad is in heaven watching over her.
I don't want a dossier dropped at my feet. I want a single credible person, including Schiff, to come forward and say "I found the evidence". I don't want a bunch of internet Sleuths playing Colombo or James Brown talking about how racist Trump is while linking her campaign fund saying she'll impeach him and not offer a single objective reason why.
That's all any of you are doing at this point. No different than the idiots who screamed Benghazi or birth certificate for 8 years.
When did I repeat left wing talking points? It was reported, by journalists I trust, that there was a group of FBI agents within the agency called Trumpland. It was then reported that they were close with Guliani. Rudy went on FOX bragging something BIG was going to drop. It did and was reported it was those FBI agents pushing it.
You can choose not to believe it, but you cannot tell us what we need to believe or decide what's universally credible for everyone. That's what you need to cut out.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
Randall Flagg wrote:misterID wrote:We need to establish no evidence and refusing to consider ANY evidence. There's plenty of evidence. It's kind of fitting that a right wing parrot keeps repeating the same thing over and over...
Says the guy who's repeating far left talking points and can't point to any evidence to support his fantasy.
The second anyone comes forward from the intel committees or intelligence agencies and says "I have proof and will be sharing said information immediately with my peers before alerting the public" I'll eagerly listen. If Trump worked with Russia, he should be shot. But MO ONE has done that. McCain explicitly said there's no evidence supporting claims Trump coordinated with Russia. You continue to "know" what really happened in the same way my mom knows my dad is in heaven watching over her.
I don't want a dossier dropped at my feet. I want a single credible person, including Schiff, to come forward and say "I found the evidence". I don't want a bunch of internet Sleuths playing Colombo or James Brown talking about how racist Trump is while linking her campaign fund saying she'll impeach him and not offer a single objective reason why.
That's all any of you are doing at this point. No different than the idiots who screamed Benghazi or birth certificate for 8 years.
When did I repeat left wing talking points? It was reported, by journalists I trust, that there was a group of FBI agents within the agency called Trumpland. It was then reported that they were close with Guliani. Rudy went on FOX bragging something BIG was going to drop. It did and was reported it was those FBI agents pushing it.
You can choose not to believe it, but you cannot tell us what we need to believe or decide what's universally credible for everyone. That's what you need to cut out.
What does this have to do with Trump working with Russia? Are you saying these agents worked with Russia to disseminate information? Are you saying the FBI knew Russia was going to release information, and innapropriately shared it with Giuliani?
Or are you saying the FBI had acquired information and leaked it themselves?
All of those require some external claim to support them.
You can believe whomever you want. You can consider a homeless schizophrenic a credible source. What you can't do is provide sources that aren't credentialed or don't adhere to basic journalistic standards and demand others consider their uncorroborated claims as fact. I could post an exclusive article from infowars, and claim that it's credible, but I can't expect you to engage in that intellectual fraud.
And you can't take individual unsubstantiated claims from numerous sources and create an entirely new argument based on those unsubstantiated claims and demand others accept it without question.
You can claim Jesus was the son of god all day long and "know" it to be true. But you don't get to claim you've intelligently argued its truth when your entire argument revolves around faith.
I'm pretty sure my sisters friend wants to fuck me. Accept my faith it's true.
Re: US Politics Thread
No, I'm saying you're acting like a baby. I'm not required to do anything. I'm not required to supply you with anything. We can all look at a subject, voice our opinions, argue, debate, dick around and move on. We believe or not. We do not site uncredible sources. You just made an ass out of yourself making this "mother Jones" argument when it was a WSJ article. We do not have to meet your demand that every single topic have to meet your specific criteria of evidence or else you're going to spam the board with childish tripe.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
No, I'm saying you're acting like a baby. I'm not required to do anything. I'm not required to supply you with anything. We can all look at a subject, voice our opinions, argue, debate, dick around and move on. We believe or not. We do not site incredible sources. You just made an ass out of yourself making this "mother Jones" argument when it was a WSJ article. We do not demand every single topic have to meet your specific criteria of evidence or else you're going to spam the board with childish tripe.
You stated your entire argument is based on your faith, and I'm the child. Thanks for letting me know you've acknowledged your contributions are not meant to provoke thought or debate, but cement a public expression of your divine knowledge.
I didn't make an ass out of myself. I asked for a source because he didn't provide one. No other major outlet is running the story. None at the time I post this. And the article says that Democrats and Reoublicans rejected the offer. That could mean his information is worth shit. Or it could mean they don't need him. If it's the latter, why have none of them come forward with that Intel Flynn has?
That no other outlet is running the story, leads me to believe it probably means he has nothing of value. And in this partisan atmosphere it means no Democrat has the smoking gun SLC and now you are implying has big implications incriminating Trump or his campaign.
That's how the powers of deduction work. You're free to disagree, but you don't get to fool yourself into thinking you've offered an intelligent analysis. That you get angry and change the topic because your opinion is indefensible at an intellectual level isn't lost on me.
Just like it's not lost on me SLC has ran away and refused to defend his attack on me once again.
Maybe Buzz was right all along, and I gave you all too much credit.
Re: US Politics Thread
buzzsaw wrote:Here's a bitter truth all of you single payer people need to understand: Insurance companies even with their "profits" can do insurance at a lower cost than a non-profit gov't agency could.
Provide proof for this claim please. Actual proof, real numbers, not you calling people stupid for not agreeing with you. Not you calling people lazy for not googling for it themselves. You made the claim, you provide the proof...
Please. The gov't is more famous for inefficiencies than anything else. If I need to prove that to you, you are stupid and lazy. Take a look at the creation of the exchanges in case you think I'm wrong.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-micha … itics.html
"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution," Kelner said. -Flynn's attorney
House intelligence committee spokesman Jack Langer said Flynn has not offered to testify to the committee in exchange for immunity.
But let's all jump to the conclusion Flynn has a bombshell revelation. No article is saying he does. But fuck anyone who doesn't "know" that's what's really going on.
Re: US Politics Thread
I notice all of the insurance experts we have here in all their ingenuity have declined to discuss how insurance companies actually make their profit.
Premiums are not priced for profit. They are priced to cover costs. Actuaries have all kinds of data and they price the products to break even. Sometimes they come out ahead; sometimes they come out behind. Overall they are pretty good though. The Underwriters then price it to include expenses. The sales team comes back to push for lower pricing because they only get paid if they sell the product, and eventually sales and underwriting settle on a price. So if they break even on the pricing of the premiums (more or less), how do insurance companies make money?
They make money by investing the premiums. Consider that your little education on how the insurance industry really works versus how you think it works while really having no idea. It's also how I know the insurance companies can do insurance cheaper than the gov't (well, not including the government's long history of wasting money). My source is me and experience. I don't really give a fuck if you don't believe the source...that's your problem, not mine. It's far better than most of the sources I see used by you guys.
Good day! I'll be back to mock you again down the road.
Re: US Politics Thread
https://www.yahoo.com/news/lawyer-micha … itics.html
"No reasonable person, who has the benefit of advice from counsel, would submit to questioning in such a highly politicized, witch hunt environment without assurances against unfair prosecution," Kelner said. -Flynn's attorney
House intelligence committee spokesman Jack Langer said Flynn has not offered to testify to the committee in exchange for immunity.
But let's all jump to the conclusion Flynn has a bombshell revelation. No article is saying he does. But fuck anyone who doesn't "know" that's what's really going on.
WSJ puts up an article and people talk about that article. That's about it. Of course his lawyer is going to say that, what else do you think he's going to say?
Here's our options as I see them thus far:
Flynn:
1) Has no information, but wants immunity of some sort before talking about anything with investigators (I find this unlikely)
2) The government does not need him as they already have enough evidence
3) The government may offer him a plea deal for his testimony, but surely aren't going to give him immunity out of the gate. (It's called negotiating, something Trump would know all about in theory)
4) The government may prefer somebody else's testimony as they would rather put Flynn in prison (unlikely)
Re: US Politics Thread
My source is me and experience.
You're fascinating!
One of my favorites from you...
Trump is a negotiator. .
He's done a brilliant job so far. We're only on the hook a proposed 18 billion for his stupid wall. Up 18 billion from when he said Mexico was going to pay it.
That Trump...he sure is one brilliant negotiator.
