Random Politics & Arguments Over Nothing #16

Nope.

I will call *** when I see it.

You inferred a possibility. You may not have specifically accused Trump of collusion, but you certainly alluded to it. No strawman there.

Just because you didn't ask the question first doesn't mean the question hasn't already been asked and answered. Either way, it has been asked, and it has been answered.

Hey, that's my schtick! Don't be stealing my ***! You flowerhead you!

I never said that it's impossible for Russia to be involved. However, my argument is that there were neither formal charges nor accusations made, and it's possible that this was either political in making, or, as evidenced by CNN's story about the person who talked to CNN, who talked to Trump, who said that we should nuke all the countries, that this was a completely false story made by WP and nobody at the CIA has even alluded to a Russia involvement.

Remember, it's Washington Post who stated that the CIA said this, without revealing their source in this.

Yes, you created an argument around me of making the accusation.

In the same notion though, you can't go around making accusations about Obama's administration and not accept that Trump being involved with Russia is a possibility, albeit it slim, it is still there.


No you didn't answer the question I asked, I don't get this point.

My personal opinion, is that it isn't true. Or if it is true it is just them leaking information, I don't think Trump is involved directly. But we need to accept the possibility and not criticize the investigation. Even the Federalist agrees with that statement.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy now though, because you were on the other end of a similar argument when it came to Clinton's email - I was on the same end as you. I was critical of her and that investigation and the same applies to this one, we can't pick and choose battles based on our political affiliation.

If anything though, I was misguided in assuming that the CIA and FBI are incapable of political plays.

isn't a possibility*

Didn't WaPo expose Watergate? Also, I think we can take WaPo a little bit more seriously they aren't Bretibart, Infowars or Vox.

The Washington Post has become, in conservative eyes, basically a blog or completely editorialized.

Which seems to be how people deal with any news they don't want to be true, but just sayin'. It's hard to use them as a source one way or another anymore.

I can admit that Russia being involved with the DNC hacks, which directly benefited Trump, as a possibility.

I, however, don't believe that Trump is involved with the hacks at all. I mean, Trump is a very smart man, and I highly doubt he would be involved in a Watergate-type scandal here.

At anything, this will end at Russia as the instigator, which won't see anything done about it (except DNC having a little better security on their email system and not sending such damning emails again, unless they are idiots). Like I stated before, what are we going to do about it?

If an investigation is being taken place that is, and this isn't some sort of witch hunt.

Like stated before, if the FBI and CIA couldn't prove that Russia hacked into Clinton's emails, but alluded that they probably have, why is their "electronic fingerprints" all over the DNC's email hack that "points to Russia involvement."?

Why would the Russians bring their "A" game in hacking the Clinton server but not when hacking into the DNC server? Can you explain that away?

And that was my entire argument. No strawmaning there.

They did, when they were more impartial than they are now.

Those very reporters would have broken out the Clinton email scandal well before it was "discovered" by something unrelated. Then again, the editors themselves would have to indict themselves, since they were all shown to be on those email chains on Clinton's server....

Also, I protest on the title of this thread.

Why should people who contribute nothing to it be allowed to say what the title of this thread to be?

I'm going to start calling you Phantom Limb.

I don't think anyone contributes anything in this thread.

Having discussions and debates about political activity is more productive than throwing out random song quotes from an obscure "artist" in a political thread.

Joe Walsh is obscure?! Now who is out of touch with blue collar America s?

Then don't throw a tantrum next time.

This is like the equivalent of the "No your stupid!" argument.

Christ almighty

NEW RULE: RPR thread titles have to be total nonsense. The more esoteric the reference the better

There, problem solved

Maybe we should re-rename the thread Salty McSalty's Saltfest.

I'm not renaming the thread in your honor, no.

Nice it feels like MySpace is born again here!! Those were the days!

I remember looking for hours to find the perfect set of songs to auto-play on myspace.

when glitter was everywhere!!

My friend.

We thought they's never end...