2020 Political Thread

[JayF]

I still believe trump was guilty of Russian collusion. I read the Mueller report. I know there wasn’t empirical evidence. Some never existed, some was destroyed.
If Clinton had won, I bet we would have heard about it because it would have happened again. Of course, I don’t think Clinton would have survived the presidency without being impeached.

I’ve only seen Schiff say there was circumstantial evidence. Not empirical. I could be wrong though.

Go read the transcripts. Your comment defy's reality. Don't take my word for it, go read it yourself.

 

[gangstonc]

Go read the transcripts. Your comment defy's reality. Don't take my word for it, go read it yourself.

Have you found the Schiff quote?

I read the Mueller report. I admit i haven’t read these transcripts yet. But i for sure don’t agree with your analysis of what you posted. In no way did Clapper day anything controversial there. It’s what we already knew.

i will read the transcripts this week. But i do know what you are saying does not at all agree with the Mueller Report. It seems like you are believing Bill Barr’s lies.

Further bolstering the fact that Clapper did not lie: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...rms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171

 

[JayF]

Have you found the Schiff quote?

I read the Mueller report. I admit i haven’t read these transcripts yet. But i for sure don’t agree with your analysis of what you posted. In no way did Clapper day anything controversial there. It’s what we already knew.

i will read the transcripts this week. But i do know what you are saying does not at all agree with the Mueller Report. It seems like you are believing Bill Barr’s lies.

Further bolstering the fact that Clapper did not lie: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...rms-russia-aimed-to-help-trump-in-2016-198171

Really Gangstonc. I said it was in many news outlets he appeared on. Why do I have to look it up for you? And bro that article was based on a lie perpetuated by the left. Go read the transcripts. You posting articles from 2016 when the transcripts completely show a different story is not helping your cause. It is showing your reluctance to look at the real evidence and instead continues to rely upon and false data.



Now go read what I posted the comments made by Mr. Clapper.

 

[gangstonc]

Really Gangstonc. I said it was in many news outlets he appeared on. Why do I have to look it up for you? And bro that article was based on a lie perpetuated by the left. Go read the transcripts. You posting articles from 2016 when the transcripts completely show a different story is not helping your cause. It is showing your reluctance to look at the real evidence and instead continues to rely upon and false data.



Now go read what I posted the comments made by Mr. Clapper.

The article was from April 21, 2020... im guessing you didn’t read it.

 

[JayF]

The article was from April 21, 2020... im guessing you didn’t read it.

Yep my bad it was from April of this year. Still pushing the Democrat narrative. The transcripts still provide a different logical conclusion. One that I cannot understand why you are trying to debunk. read the quotes. They are what Mr. Clapper said to Mr. Schiff and others in Congress during sworn testimony.

 

[gangstonc]

Yep my bad it was from April of this year. Still pushing the Democrat narrative. The transcripts still provide a different logical conclusion. One that I cannot understand why you are trying to debunk. read the quotes. They are what Mr. Clapper said to Mr. Schiff and others in Congress during sworn testimony.

It was A senate report - a republican lead review! It’s not a Democrat talking point at all. Clapper’s testimony fits this. I don’t think you are properly interpreting the meaning of the word ‘empirical’.

the interview video you posted does not contain the word “empirical”. Further, Schiff was correct in all the facts.

basically, what you are calling the democrat narrative is now the viewpoint of senate republicans.

 

[JayF]

It was A senate report - a republican lead review! It’s not a Democrat talking point at all. Clapper’s testimony fits this. I don’t think you are properly interpreting the meaning of the word ‘empirical’.

the interview video you posted does not contain the word “empirical”. Further, Schiff was correct in all the facts.

basically, what you are calling the democrat narrative is now the viewpoint of senate republicans.

So let me get this right. Politico is a Government Ran website that provides Senate reports without bias? Ok news to me.

Well from Politico's own about page it says:

We inform the powerful, particularly those who have a political, professional or financial stake in politics and policy. We illuminate this influential audience with insight, edge and authority. We do this wherever, whenever and however our customers need it. And we do it better than anyone else.



Schiff is making direct allegations in this interview that Mr. Clapper said this:

MR. CLAPPER: "Well, no it's not. I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. "

That is taken directly from the transcripts.

 

[gangstonc]

So let me get this right. Politico is a Government Ran website that provides Senate reports without bias? Ok news to me.

Well from Politico's own about page it says:

We inform the powerful, particularly those who have a political, professional or financial stake in politics and policy. We illuminate this influential audience with insight, edge and authority. We do this wherever, whenever and however our customers need it. And we do it better than anyone else.



Schiff is making direct allegations in this interview that Mr. Clapper said this:

MR. CLAPPER: "Well, no it's not. I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election. "

That is taken directly from the transcripts.

Press | Intelligence Committee

www.intelligence.senate.gov

Give this link a shot if you don’t like politico.

Empirical is the key word

 

[JayF]

Ok, so your April Senate Intelligence Committee Sheet is supposed to be everything while the transcripts do not mean anything to you. Look man. I just want you to look at this objectively without the rose-colored glasses on and give it a look without your political stuff. Just look at my post and tell me that I am right or wrong and why you think that. If you do not want to read my post it is useless to even talk to you because you are reacting via your emotions instead of reading the text with a critical mind. If you can't do that, then don't respond and continue wasting my time and some senate intelligence report that came out weeks ago, while the transcripts came out Thursday.

Read my post from beginning to end, and look at it objectively or just leave me alone. No, I will not read some articles. I will read your opinion on said article. I am not going to try and infer what you mean.

 

[gangstonc]

Ok, so your April Senate Intelligence Committee Sheet is supposed to be everything while the transcripts do not mean anything to you. Look man. I just want you to look at this objectively without the rose-colored glasses on and give it a look without your political stuff. Just look at my post and tell me that I am right or wrong and why you think that. If you do not want to read my post it is useless to even talk to you because you are reacting via your emotions instead of reading the text with a critical mind. If you can't do that, then don't respond and continue wasting my time and some senate intelligence report that came out weeks ago, while the transcripts came out Thursday.

Read my post from beginning to end, and look at it objectively or just leave me alone. No, I will not read some articles. I will read your opinion on said article. I am not going to try and infer what you mean.

I told you earlier. You are wrong because your interpretation of the transcripts is incorrect. There was ample evidence of the trump campaign working with the Russians. There was no smoking gun, ‘empirical’ evidence. These transcripts are quoted in the report!



The report I posted was just to prove that the statement “the Russians helped trump win in 2016” is not a democrat talking point

 

[JayF]

It was A senate report - a republican lead review! It’s not a Democrat talking point at all. Clapper’s testimony fits this. I don’t think you are properly interpreting the meaning of the word ‘empirical’.

the interview video you posted does not contain the word “empirical”. Further, Schiff was correct in all the facts.

basically, what you are calling the democrat narrative is now the viewpoint of senate republicans.

So let me get this right. Politico is a Government Ran website that provides Senate reports without bias? Ok news to me.

Well from Politico's own about page it says:

We inform the powerful, particularly those who have a political, professional or financial stake in politics and policy. We illuminate this influential audience with insight, edge and authority. We do this wherever, whenever and however our customers need it. And we do it better than anyone else.



Schiff is making direct allegations in this interview that Mr. Clapper says was not even remotely an issue.

I told you earlier. You are wrong because your interpretation of the transcripts is incorrect. There was ample evidence of the trump campaign working with the Russians. There was no smoking gun, ‘empirical’ evidence. These transcripts are quoted in the report!



The report I posted was just to prove that the statement “the Russians helped trump win in 2016” is not a democrat talking point

i wasn’t interpreting anything it was his words what’s there to interpret?

 

[gangstonc]

So let me get this right. Politico is a Government Ran website that provides Senate reports without bias? Ok news to me.

Well from Politico's own about page it says:

We inform the powerful, particularly those who have a political, professional or financial stake in politics and policy. We illuminate this influential audience with insight, edge and authority. We do this wherever, whenever and however our customers need it. And we do it better than anyone else.



Schiff is making direct allegations in this interview that Mr. Clapper says was not even remotely an issue.

i wasn’t interpreting anything it was his words what’s there to interpret?

I also linked directly to the senate page after you said you didn’t like politico.
Your conclusions reached from your reading of the clapper transcript are incorrect. I have no idea how you think the Schiff interview and Clapper interview don’t mesh perfectly.

 

[JayF]

I also linked directly to the senate page after you said you didn’t like politico.
Your conclusions reached from your reading of the clapper transcript are incorrect. I have no idea how you think the Schiff interview and Clapper interview don’t mesh perfectly.

gangstonc. You have officially madeit where I will never discuss anything with you ever again. Have a blessed day.

 

[JayF]

I do not disagree at all. We are about to see those who perpetrated this trump collusion scam go down.

 

[JayF]

Deep state is in trouble. I do not doubt we will start to see a lot of truths unearthed. I also wouldn’t doubt Hillary dead or in jail by 2021.

 

[JayF]

Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

 

[gangstonc]

Empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

Exactly. Not circumstantial evidence, which is abundant.

hopefully you see that not all evidence has to be empirical. You can still draw logical conclusions from circumstantial evidence.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

Look man. I just want you to look at this objectively without the rose-colored glasses on and give it a look without your political stuff. Just look at my post and tell me that I am right or wrong and why you think that. If you do not want to read my post it is useless to even talk to you because you are reacting via your emotions instead of reading the text with a critical mind.

Yeah, because that's what you did with the article he posted.

 

[JayF]

Yeah, because that's what you did with the article he posted.

He wanted me to look at the article and infer what to pick out of it to support his points. It doesn't really work that way.

 

[maroonedinhsv]

He wanted me to look at the article and infer what to pick out of it to support his points. It doesn't really work that way.

Then why didn’t you counter with that point instead of making absurd false claims about what he posted?