Russia - US | Ukraine “peace negotiations”

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 2K
  • Views: 35K
  • Politics 
No, I only have to know more than you. Because you are misinterpreting the Mueller Report. Again, why do you argue law with me? It never works out for you. It never will work out for you. It's like trying to argue about football strategy with an NFL head coach. You can't win that discussion because you are at such a structural disadvantage.
Your subjective views of me don't change the fact that, as of now, and if facts and evidence matter, we shouldn't believe that Trump conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

Again, if you believe he/they did, then you must also believe that you have access to more information/evidence than the US government.
 
Oh this is just the beginning for Z's apology to Trump. Lots more to follow as his situation becomes more and more desperate.
Brother, don't hold your breath that any head of state of any country is ever going to publicly apologize to any head of state of any other country.
 
That definitely worked in February 2022.

Apples and oranges. We would have not only people but US owned infrastructure in place all over the country. Not just people in an office building that can be evacuated in 48 hrs. The two situations not even remotely the same.
 
Of course. I meant that Indians are indeed comfortable wearing suits. It's not like Gandhi visits the White House. Every single person in the Indian government is fully comfortable in a suit, having worn them to work for years and years.

The point is that Trump obviously didn't ask Modi to wear a suit, because he obviously doesn't actually care about the suit.
Maybe Ukranians have a secret cultural inclination for wearing onesies?
 
Apples and oranges. We would have not only people but US owned infrastructure in place all over the country. Not just people in an office building that can be evacuated in 48 hrs. The two situations not even remotely the same.
You mean except for the hope Putin would not attack US business interests in Ukraine?
 
Brother, don't hold your breath that any head of state of any country is ever going to publicly apologize to any head of state of any other country.
Obama went on an apology tour - apologizing to every Muslim country he could find - expressing how sorry he was for the "sins" of the US. You must remember that since you were still a conservative at the time.:)
 
they said that they couldn't establish grounds for criminal conspiracy or collusion charges.

all of the communications and contacts make it pretty damn crystal clear that the trump campaign did indeed "work with" the russians to some degree.
I agree that there was a lot of contact between the Trump campaign and Russians. There are lots of Russians in Russia and I'd bet the life of everyone in my family that only a very small number was involved in the hacking/releasing of Dem/DNC emails. In other words, it's not inherently illegal or conspiratorial to interact with Russians. Trump & Co. could meet and talk to nearly every person in Russia and never come across someone who was involved in the hacking.

The hacking and social media events were what the conspiracy claims revolved around.
 
I agree that there was a lot of contact between the Trump campaign and Russians. There are lots of Russians in Russia and I'd bet the life of everyone in my family that only a very small number was involved in the hacking/releasing of Dem/DNC emails. In other words, it's not inherently illegal or conspiratorial to interact with Russians. Trump & Co. could meet and talk to nearly every person in Russia and never come across someone who was involved in the hacking.

The hacking and social media events were what the conspiracy claims revolved around.
Well, the ones Trump & Co met and talked with were members of the Russian government; they were in fact part of the Russian intelligence apparatus; and they were indicted by Mueller.

This nonsense about interacting with everyone in Russia is the worst faith argument I've ever seen,.
 
Without further military aid or US/NATO boots in Ukraine, why would Putin stop short of his goal? No American companies are going to go there, build infrastructure and extract valuable resources without full confidence Putin won’t kill or kidnap them, steal equipment or the mined minerals.
Will probably have US resources working within 6 months.
 
Obama went on an apology tour - apologizing to every Muslim country he could find - expressing how sorry he was for the "sins" of the US. You must remember that since you were still a conservative at the time.:)
Swing and a miss again, hoss. Go read the transcripts of those speeches that Obama gave in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and France. Not once was the word 'apologize' in those speeches. His speeches in the Middle East acknowledged that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” But in a speech in France- the one to which my preferred 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney referenced in a debate with Obama- Obama called out Europeans for an “anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.”

Look, man, far be it from me to advise an old man on anything, but you really can just take an extra 30-60 seconds to fact check yourself before posting something on this board that you know is going to get fact-checked. It would save you a lot of humiliation, if that's even something you wish to avoid. Hard to tell.
 
Your subjective views of me don't change the fact that, as of now, and if facts and evidence matter, we shouldn't believe that Trump conspired with Russia to interfere in the 2016 election.

Again, if you believe he/they did, then you must also believe that you have access to more information/evidence than the US government.
It's not about you per se. It's that you are misinterpreting the report and making false claims. Which you have repeated here.

Why are you trying to argue law with me? Or any of the other board lawyers? We know what the report did and didn't actually say. We know what the actual evidence is. Well, I don't remember all the details any more, but let's put it this way: if it was a civil suit, Trump would have lost. When Mueller writes "did not establish" he's writing that against a backdrop of "no reasonable doubt." Beyond the shadow of a doubt is a useful standard when assessing the culpability of someone in order to justify imprisoning them. It is useless for making policy.
 


“… President Donald Trump has told his advisers that he wants to announce the agreement in his address to Congress Tuesday evening, three of the sources said, cautioning that the deal had yet to be signed and the situation could change….”

Good enough, maybe?:

IMG_5364.jpeg
IMG_5365.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Swing and a miss again, hoss. Go read the transcripts of those speeches that Obama gave in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and France. Not once was the word 'apologize' in those speeches. His speeches in the Middle East acknowledged that "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” But in a speech in France- the one to which my preferred 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney referenced in a debate with Obama- Obama called out Europeans for an “anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.”

Look, man, far be it from me to advise an old man on anything, but you really can just take an extra 30-60 seconds to fact check yourself before posting something on this board that you know is going to get fact-checked. It would save you a lot of humiliation, if that's even something you wish to avoid. Hard to tell.
I said he apologized to Muslim countries, i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and he did. You just counter that he didn't say "apologize" when he was apologizing. OK.

You brought up France not me.
 
I said he apologized to Muslim countries, i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and he did. You just counter that he didn't say "apologize" when he was apologizing. OK.

You brought up France not me.
Wait, what? *You* said he apologized. I said that the word 'apologize' isn't in any of the transcripts of the speeches he gave in the Middle East. Not one place.

Words have meaning, man!
 
It's not about you per se. It's that you are misinterpreting the report and making false claims. Which you have repeated here.

Why are you trying to argue law with me? Or any of the other board lawyers? We know what the report did and didn't actually say. We know what the actual evidence is. Well, I don't remember all the details any more, but let's put it this way: if it was a civil suit, Trump would have lost. When Mueller writes "did not establish" he's writing that against a backdrop of "no reasonable doubt." Beyond the shadow of a doubt is a useful standard when assessing the culpability of someone in order to justify imprisoning them. It is useless for making policy.
What am I misinterpreting when I say the current belief, until proven otherwise, is that Trump & Co. didn't conspire with Russians as it pertains to the email hacking/social media campaign. The Mueller report laid out everything. They interviewed everyone involved, under threat of lengthy prison terms for lying, and couldn't not establish that there was a conspiracy.

Why would you, right now, today, believe Trump & Co. conspired?
 
What am I misinterpreting when I say the current belief, until proven otherwise, is that Trump & Co. didn't conspire with Russians as it pertains to the email hacking/social media campaign. The Mueller report laid out everything. They interviewed everyone involved, under threat of lengthy prison terms for lying, and couldn't not establish that there was a conspiracy.

Why would you, right now, today, believe Trump & Co. conspired?
I've already said why. Because they were operating against a standard of proof that is far higher than what is warranted. You know, UNC got rid of Mack last year. Did they establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he couldn't rebuild UNC to a top 10 program? They did not. They did not try. Because that's not the right standard.

Honestly, I don't really give a fuck about the Mueller report or the 2016 campaign. If Trump had come into office and done a good job, and stopped sucking up to Putin, then it wouldn't matter at all. He's not done any of that, and is indeed more obsequious than he used to be. That's a huge problem regardless of what happened in 2016.

But I'm always going to push back on falsehoods and error. I've done that. Now the conversation is over. Once you ask a question a second time, after it has been clearly answered and you've made no attempt to counter it, it's time to stop.
 
I said he apologized to Muslim countries, i.e. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey and he did. You just counter that he didn't say "apologize" when he was apologizing. OK.

You brought up France not me.
There is no meaning of the word "apologize" that applies to what Obama said. None.

I would have liked him to apologize. It was clearly warranted. But he didn't. What he did do was acknowledge that America fucked up in Iraq, which nobody doubts -- both sides of the aisle recognize that was a calamity. And so Obama had to acknowledge that in order to rebuild trust. That's the way the world works.

I have a pretty good read on who you are as a person, I think. Of course you think acknowledge = apologize. It fits with everything else.
 
Back
Top