Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Igotadose

26000 Elephants wrote: »

It doesnt actually debunk the part about the houses. It does confirm that the grant was part of Libyan law, though.

It then gets a bit subjective. It says "I dont know of anyone who got this grant". Now, not to nitpick, but isnt there a first time buyers grant in Ireland? But i too can honestly make the statement "i dont know anyone who gets this grant". Does that make it untrue?

Not the only source for rebuttal out there. And it does go into how 'everyone gets a house' meant 'Qaddafi took housing from his opponents and gave it to his acolytes. Interesting reading here: https://www.quora.com/What-was-it-like-to-live-under-the-Gaddafi-regime

MadYaker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Caliphates.


Trump got stick last week when it came out that the White House had been instructed to tell federal agencies not to renew subscriptions for the New York Times and the Washington Post, but sure all they do is prove him right with this kind of crap..


https://twitter.com/BuckSexton/status/1188474056460374020

Well the guy did blow himself up but I agree with the point you're making, not quite dishonest but definitely sly wording so as not to give any credit.

Outlaw Pete

CNN can't hide their tetchiness either, they interrupted the POTUS just to have a needless petty swipe at him.


https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1188462890317160454


Eager to get back to their wall-to-wall impeachment coverage no doubt.

26000 Elephants

Igotadose wrote: »

Not the only source for rebuttal out there. And it does go into how 'everyone gets a house' meant 'Qaddafi took housing from his opponents and gave it to his acolytes. Interesting reading here: https://www.quora.com/What-was-it-like-to-live-under-the-Gaddafi-regime

Rebuttal? The source confirmed the grant was in law - everything else you cite is a scramble to try and paint a convoluted 'story' of x, y and z.

Can you not accept that it was maybe true? you can argue the inefficiencies of Libyan bureaucracy another day.

Outlaw Pete

Pelosi not happy Russians were notified about the strike before she was:

“This month, the House passed a joint resolution on an overwhelmingly bipartisan 354-60 basis which rejects President Trump’s green-lighting of Turkish aggression into Syria against our Kurdish partners, and calls on him to present a clear strategy to defeat ISIS. The House must be briefed on this raid, which the Russians but not top Congressional Leadership were notified of in advance, and on the Administration’s overall strategy in the region. Our military and allies deserve strong, smart and strategic leadership from Washington.”

Full statement here.

26000 Elephants

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Caliphates.

Is this a hoax? Looking at the WP it says he was an Extrenist, not austere. The only links I can find that say otherwise are various right wing pearl-clutchers crying about it.

Igotadose

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Is this a hoax? Looking at the WP it says he was an Extrenist, but austere. The only links I can find that say otherwise are various right wing pearl-clutchers crying about it.

Seems like WAPO updated from the initial, ridiculous 'austere' obit to the current 'extremist' one: https://www.mediaite.com/news/wapo-changes-al-baghdadi-headline-after-getting-ripped-for-referring-to-terror-leader-as-austere-religious-scholar/

Pretty disappointing. Currently the website shows the 'extremist' headline. Unless mediaite's wrong.

FrostyJack

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Pelosi not happy Russians were notified about the strike before she was:

The boss has to be notified first before the patriotic Americans. Thanks for proving what we have said all along.

Outlaw Pete

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Is this a hoax? Looking at the WP it says he was an Extrenist, not austere.

Nope, I still have the page open in one of my tabs, behind a paywall though and so the screencap comes out dark:

gizmo

Igotadose wrote: »

Seems like WAPO updated from the initial, ridiculous 'austere' obit to the current 'extremist' one: https://www.mediaite.com/news/wapo-changes-al-baghdadi-headline-after-getting-ripped-for-referring-to-terror-leader-as-austere-religious-scholar/

Pretty disappointing. Currently the website shows the 'extremist' headline. Unless mediaite's wrong.

As per the Mediaite article, the headline has actually been changed multiple times since it was first posted. It initially described him as "Islamic State's 'terrorist-in-chief'", as reflected by the URL to the piece, then the quoted "austere religious scholar" and has now gone to "extremist leader of Islamic State".

Twitter people seem really mad about this but what I find most odd is that it's in the Obituaries section.

Personally, I never realised austere also meant "severe or strict in manner or attitude" which, one assumes, is the context the author used it within the piece and why the copy-editor felt the need to use it in the headline.

Aretheymyfeet

FrostyJack wrote: »

The boss has to be notified first before the patriotic Americans. Thanks for proving what we have said all along.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm pretty sure Nancy isn't militarily operational in Syria at the moment. There's good reason to inform the other major military player in the operational theatre where strikes are concerned. The whole Trump is a Putin asset/stooge thing is complete rubbish but carry on believing it if you wish. Not sure why Nancy should actually be informed at all, beyond the normal public announcement.

Outlaw Pete

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Not sure why Nancy should actually be informed at all, beyond the normal public announcement.

Well, Obama asked them for permission so some have begun to get above their station.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Aretheymyfeet

duploelabs wrote: »

Binary because I pointed out your talking points of corporate media, using 'Dems' and not Republicans too, and credibility of intelligence agencies?? I merely pointed out a similarity of your rhetoric fella

Eh, my original comment stated 'It's your media conditioned perception that has you not seeing the fact that the Dems and established media, Intel and beyond have sought to overturn the 2016 election since election night'. Please explain why you believe I should have included the Reps in this? It's partisan by its very nature.

prawnsambo

FrostyJack wrote: »

The boss has to be notified first before the patriotic Americans. Thanks for proving what we have said all along.

Not sure Trump even knew (or cared), because he was off playing golf at the time of the raid. Didn't get back to the White House until 4:18pm

FrostyJack

Aretheymyfeet wrote:

Don't be ridiculous. I'm pretty sure Nancy isn't militarily operational in Syria at the moment. There's good reason to inform the other major military player in the operational theatre where strikes are concerned. The whole Trump is a Putin asset/stooge thing is complete rubbish but carry on believing it if you wish. Not sure why Nancy should actually be informed at all, beyond the normal public announcement.

Trump isn't militarily operational in Syria either, remember the bone spurs. Congress is supposed to have oversight. Just a few days after Trump hands the Kurds and Syria to Russian forces and sends his staff around the World to discredit the Mueller report so he can lift Russian sanctions, yeah he is so hard on Russia.

Aretheymyfeet

FrostyJack wrote: »

Trump isn't militarily operational in Syria either, remember the bone spurs. Congress is supposed to have oversight. Just a few days after Trump hands the Kurds and Syria to Russian forces and sends his staff around the World to discredit the Mueller report so he can lift Russian sanctions, yeah he is so hard on Russia.

Eh, he's the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Pelosi is merely a member of the opposition party. She's not in government. Congress doesn't approve every strike, they barely approve full interventions at this stage. The Mueller Report did a perfectly good job of discrediting itself. No evidence was provided of Russian State interference in the US election. Obstruction requires a crime to have been committed, none was proven. It was a massive own goal and non event. Please explain why you believe the still UN recognised sovereign government of Syria shouldn't regain full control over sovereign Syrian territory? Russia are legally there at the invitation of that UN recognised government. The US has no legal basis to be in Syria at all.

prawnsambo

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh, he's the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. Pelosi is merely a member of the opposition party. She's not on government. Congress doesn't approve every strike, they barely approve full interventions at this stage. The Mueller Report did a perfectly good job of discrediting itself. No evidence was provided of Russian State interference in the US election. Obstruction requires a crime to have been committed, none was proven. It was a massive own goal and non event. Please explain why you believe the still UN recognised sovereign government of Syria shouldn't regain full control over sovereign Syrian territory? Russia are legally there at the invitation of that UN recognised government. The US has no legal basis to be in Syria at all.

Maria Butina? Twelve other Russian GRU officers named and arrests sought?

Aretheymyfeet

prawnsambo wrote: »

Maria Butina? Twelve other Russian GRU officers named and arrests sought?

The Butina prosecution was a joke. Nothing unusual about her lobbying efforts. The 12 Russian GRU officers indictments were conveniently ones that would never have to be proven in a court of law. You do realise allegations are not the same as evidence, right?the Mueller team got a shock when the Russians appointed lawyers and made a discovery request. The whole thing is a massive pile of BS.

prawnsambo

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

The Butina prosecution was a joke. Nothing unusual about her lobbying efforts. The 12 Russian GRU officers indictments were conveniently ones that would never have to be proven in a court of law. You do realise allegations are not the same as evidence, right?the Mueller team got a shock when the Russians appointed lawyers and made a discovery request. The whole thing is a massive pile of BS.

If you think I'm going to believe anything the Russians say on the subject after that jokeshop RT interview of the Skripal poisoners, you've got to be deluded. Hilarious that you'd be that naive.

Aretheymyfeet

prawnsambo wrote: »

If you think I'm going to believe anything the Russians say on the subject after that jokeshop RT interview of the Skripal poisoners, you've got to be deluded. Hilarious that you'd be that naive.

I'm not asking you to believe anyone. You should try sticking to objectively verifiable evidence. It'll prevent you buying into fairy tales.

In respect of Skripal, can you perhaps explain how the two Russians managed to apply the 'novichok' to the Skripals door handle to poison them when the Skripals left the house for the day BEFORE the Russians arrived in Salisbury that day? Time travelling Russians is it? The British narrative on that story is hilariously inconsistent.

prawnsambo

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

I'm not asking you to believe anyone. You should try sticking to objectively verifiable evidence. It'll prevent you buying into fairy tales.

You do realise that you have to have evidence in order to seek an international arrest. Not that there was any chance of the Russians giving up GRU officers. And fairy tales. Like this one below?

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

In respect of Skripal, can you perhaps explain how the two Russians managed to apply the 'novichok' to the Skripals door handle to poison them when the Skripals left the house for the day BEFORE the Russians arrived in Salisbury that day? Time travelling Russians is it? The British narrative on that story is hilariously inconsistent.

Two GRU officers. Identified and named. In Salisbury. But something, something , timing or something. Please back that up. I can just point you to the Bellingcat website for the rest.

Aretheymyfeet

prawnsambo wrote: »

You do realise that you have to have evidence in order to seek an international arrest. Not that there was any chance of the Russians giving up GRU officers. And fairy tales. Like this one below?

Two GRU officers. Identified and named. In Salisbury. But something, something , timing or something. Please back that up. I can just point you to the Bellingcat website for the rest.

Eh, nothing is proven by an indictment at all. It is allegations. The US standard in this regard is laughable at this stage. Obviously no Russian would voluntarily submit themself to the US 'justice system' in this McCarthyite era.

Bellingcat? Hilarious. Mr NATO narrative himself. Myself and Mr Higgins have had a few discussions in our time. In fairness to him he's quite ready to engage with all comers but his 'evidence' rarely stands up to proper scrutiny.

You clearly are not familiar with the alleged timeline in the Skripal affair. Perhaps you can explain how two ppl can be poisoned with one of the most toxic substances in existence, go for lunch, have a stroll, and both be affected simultaneously. Oh, and by absolute coincidence Colonel Alison McCourt, a veteran service member who currently holds the position of chief nursing officer in the British Army was the first medical attendant on the scene. Fancy that?

MadYaker

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

The Butina prosecution was a joke. Nothing unusual about her lobbying efforts. The 12 Russian GRU officers indictments were conveniently ones that would never have to be proven in a court of law. You do realise allegations are not the same as evidence, right?the Mueller team got a shock when the Russians appointed lawyers and made a discovery request. The whole thing is a massive pile of BS.

So first you say there was no russian interference then when presented with convictions you just decide that isn’t relevant and continue with the flawed line of reasoning, all the while talking about objectivity. Hard to respond tbh.

prawnsambo

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Eh, nothing is proven by an indictment at all. It is allegations. The US standard in this regard is laughable at this stage. Obviously no Russian would voluntarily submit themself to the US 'justice system' in this McCarthyite era.

That's pure conjecture with nothing other than your disbelief to back it up. Arrests were sought But apparently that means nothing and there's no connection to Russia. Despite Butina's arrest and conviction.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Bellingcat? Hilarious. Mr NATO narrative himself. Myself and Mr Higgins have had a few discussions in our time. In fairness to him he's quite ready to engage with all comers but his 'evidence' rarely stands up to proper scrutiny.

As have I. And nobody other than the Russians have denied his claims.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

You clearly are not familiar with the alleged timeline in the Skripal affair. Perhaps you can explain how two ppl can be poisoned with one of the most toxic substances in existence, go for lunch, have a stroll, and both be affected simultaneously. Oh, and by absolute coincidence Colonel Alison McCourt, a veteran service member who currently holds the position of chief nursing officer in the British Army was the first medical attendant on the scene. Fancy that?

Another two people were poisoned. One sprayed it on herself and still survived for a considerable length of time. And there was plenty of time for the two lads to spray the door handle since the Skripals returned home after being out early in the morning before going out again for lunch. The police think they may even have been in the house when it was done. There is no inconsistency there. Your defence of the Russians is admirable, if weak comrade.

prawnsambo

MadYaker wrote: »

So first you say there was no russian interference then when presented with convictions you just decide that isn’t relevant and continue with the flawed line of reasoning, all the while talking about objectivity. Hard to respond tbh.

You're right. It's bluster and innuendo dressed up in a transparent suit of faux confidence. Shouldn't have engaged really.

Aretheymyfeet

MadYaker wrote: »

So first you say there was no russian interference then when presented with convictions you just decide that isn’t relevant and continue with the flawed line of reasoning, all the while talking about objectivity. Hard to respond tbh.

Please detail which conviction relates to and proves Russian State interference in the US election.

Aretheymyfeet

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's pure conjecture with nothing other than your disbelief to back it up. Arrests were sought But apparently that means nothing and there's no connection to Russia. Despite Butina's arrest and conviction.

As have I. And nobody other than the Russians have denied his claims.

Another two people were poisoned. One sprayed it on herself and still survived for a considerable length of time. And there was plenty of time for the two lads to spray the door handle since the Skripals returned home after being out early in the morning before going out again for lunch. The police think they may even have been in the house when it was done. There is no inconsistency there. Your defence of the Russians is admirable, if weak comrade.

Yes, that does mean nothing. You clearly do not understand the difference between allegations and convictions. Scary to think of you on a jury.

Butina clearly pleaded when faced with decades in a US prison is she had fought it and lost. As I said, what Russian could expect a fair trial before a US jury in this polarised McCarthyite era?

Please provide evidence/source for your claim that the Skripals returned to the house again after leaving that morning. Your defence of the wholly inconsistent British narrative is amusing. Comrade? Ah bless....

prawnsambo

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Please detail which conviction relates to and proves Russian State interference in the US election.

Did you even read the plea deal that Butina signed? Or who her boss Alexander Torshin worked for? [Russian Official] below is Torshin.

Butina sought to establish unofficial lines of communication with Americans having power and influence over U.S. politics. Butina sought to use those unofficial lines of communication for the benefit of the Russian Federation, acting through Russian Official.

But of course something, something, McCarthyite.

Aretheymyfeet

prawnsambo wrote: »

Did you even read the plea deal that Butina signed? Or who her boss Alexander Torshin worked for? [Russian Official] below is Torshin.


But of course something, something, McCarthyite.

Cool story. Please explain why this differs from any other country's lobbying efforts? Are the Russians not to be allowed lobby like every other country? Please also explain how this lobbying interfered with the US election.

prawnsambo

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Yes, that does mean nothing. You clearly do not understand the difference between allegations and convictions. Scary to think of you on a jury.

Butina clearly pleaded when faced with decades in a US prison is she had fought it and lost. As I said, what Russian could expect a fair trial before a US jury in this polarised McCarthyite era?

Seriously reaching here. Oh, they're all innocent because they couldn't get a fair trial and it's all polarised and (presumably) hysterical as well. Your two statements above are hilarious. "Allegations aren't convictions". Ok, here's a conviction. "But unfair trial in McCarthyite something polarised US". You must get dizzy running around with those goalposts.

Aretheymyfeet wrote: »

Please provide evidence/source for your claim that the Skripals returned to the house again after leaving that morning. Your defence of the wholly inconsistent British narrative is amusing. Comrade? Ah bless....

You can look it up yourself. The timeline was published at the time of the investigation. But here's a synopsis of it in the Guardian.

But yeah, I have to provide evidence to deny your made up conspiracy theory. You've backed up nothing on this thread so far A bit of a pattern that I've no intention of pandering to any further