John Lewis: Trump isn't a legitimate president

by Brokeback Watchtower 67 Replies latest jw friends

  • bohm
    bohm

    I have never convinced anyone who started from the premise the intelligence agencies are all lying and I don't think that will happen today. I will only make one observation:

    All the talk recently has been about which celebrities will boycott the inauguration. WTF? Who gives a crap?

    Please notice that of the two of us, YOU are the one who is bringing up this topic. That is another tendency I have seen in this election: Opponents of HRC keeps saying that they "keeps bringing up" some ridiculous side point. I don't give a shit about who does what at the election and the way you can tell is that I don't bring it up.



  • Simon
    Simon
    This is like first dismissing anything any agency or politician has ever said about 9/11 and then saying there is ZERO evidence that Al-Queda was involved. I can't really make a rational argument against that view.

    It's nothing like.

    it's like believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 and going to war over it even though we know it was Al-Queda and most of the attackers were Saudi's. Seems stupid to make the same dumb mistakes all over again, especially when picking a pointless fight with a huge nuclear power might have a bad outcome for the planet, especially with an idiot at the controls.

    a moment ago I could have sworn we were talking about what might be in some emails of Clintons none of us have ever seen

    We don't need to see them. We know they were deleted. Guilty.

    I don't think not handing over tax returns is a crime

    probably because it isn't?

    it has been the norm for all other presidents since IIRC Carter

    Someone started it, likely to make an issue of someone else's finances and it became expected but ultimately it's the electorate that gets to decide how important it is.

    given all the other facts surrounding his business ties to Russia and the conviction for violating anti-money laundering rules it baffles my mind you focus on HRCs hypothetical emails

    I think we can focus on both. Clinton's email debacle is a fact. Trump's failures can also be a fact when they are uncovered and I hope they are. But whatever he does will never undo her crimes.

    Worse though, making unverifiable and unprovable allegations will end up making him bullet-proof and be able to dismiss possibly future claims as "fake news".

    I'd rather powder was kept dry and used when there is a clear target than wasting ammunition firing at shadows.

    Please notice that of the two of us, YOU are the one who is bringing up this topic.

    It's an example of the lame attacks that only serve to help Trump. The left makes everything about how someone feels, especially if that someone is a rich celebrity. It feeds right into his narrative that they are out of touch and he is for the people. It shows that the thing they care about most is celebrity endorsements, they should be caring more about what's happening with healthcare, Trump's appointees and legislation that will give even more control to Washington.

    So few on the left seem to have any basic common sense or political competency, it's no wonder they are being decimated politically right now.

  • Brokeback Watchtower
    Brokeback Watchtower

    Intelligence Chiefs Allege Russians Have Compromising Information On Donald Trump - Extortion?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrikdBkTUBI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtOTmXTCCbE

  • Simon
  • bohm
    bohm

    It's nothing like.

    it's like believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 and going to war over it even though we know it was Al-Queda and most of the attackers were Saudi's

    Was Tomothy McVeigh responsible for the bombings? Well, we can't know anymore because that was the FBI and we know they are full of it. Who was responsible for the original bombing of the WTC? Well, we can't know because all we got to go on is the FBI and a few other agencies and they are known liars. What about who killed JFK? Well, we can't know because the people who investigated that (FBI?) are known liars etc. etc.

    You can't just say: Well, normally it would be nuts to just dismiss the findings of 17 agencies whose findings are accepted even by the people who has the most to loose (well, minus Trump) by accepting their findings, but just in this case we know they are full of it. That's not being consistent.

    We don't need to see them. We know they were deleted. Guilty.

    Can we just be crystal clear about which deleted emails we are talking about here (i.e. a source to the official investigation).

    I know you don't trust the FBI, but this information has to come from somewhere. Insofar as I am aware the emails deleted were personal and determined not to be important.


    I think we can focus on both. Clinton's email debacle is a fact. Trump's failures can also be a fact when they are uncovered and I hope they are. But whatever he does will never undo her crimes.

    Worse though, making unverifiable and unprovable allegations will end up making him bullet-proof and be able to dismiss possibly future claims as "fake news".

    The email thing was determined not to be a crime, the anti-money laundering thing was not a "failure" but a crime for which a 10M fine was handed out. Apples and oranges.

  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot

    Simon,

    it's like believing that Iraq was behind 9/11 and going to war over it even though we know it was Al-Queda and most of the attackers were Saudi's. Seems stupid to make the same dumb mistakes all over again, especially when picking a pointless fight with a huge nuclear power might have a bad outcome for the planet, especially with an idiot at the controls.

    The bogus Iraqi issue was the result of a president - Bush - wanting to cook up an excuse to invade it because Saddam once threatened his daddy. It came from the top down. There is no parallel between that and the massive intelligence on this issue unless you want to believe that our current president, Obama is behind it. Any conspiracy is not likely to have been cooked up by all 17 intelligence agencies just so that the CIA could broaden its power.

    Per the idiot in control of our nuclear arsenal, he is not likely to start a war of any kind with his lover Putin.

  • bohm
    bohm

    Simon: Let me get this straight. CIA, FBI, NSA, homeland security, etc. etc., they are all liars and can't be trusted but youtube angry grandpa Sargon of Akkad on the other hand..

  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot

    Simon, I may have missed this on this thread but whom do you believe hacked the emails?

  • Simon
    Simon
    I may have missed this on this thread but whom do you believe hacked the emails?

    I don't know, I just know we've yet to see any compelling evidence that it was Russian state sponsored other than the CIA telling us that it must be. There's plenty of things that would make you think it wasn't them.

    The bogus Iraqi issue was the result of a president - Bush - wanting to cook up an excuse to invade it because Saddam once threatened his daddy. It came from the top down. There is no parallel between that and the massive intelligence on this issue unless you want to believe that our current president, Obama is behind it.

    You forget the 3rd option - that segments of the intelligence agency think they run the world and whichever president is in power is a pawn in their games. I think Obama is asleep at the wheel right now and has been for some time.

    Can we just be crystal clear about which deleted emails we are talking about here (i.e. a source to the official investigation).

    Clinton admitted she deleted them but claims they were "just personal". We only have her word and I don't trust it, especially as they were deleted after she was subpoena'd for them and whoever did it used software specifically designed to prevent the recovery of them so I do not buy that they were just old personal emails she no longer had use for.

    It's confusing because there are 2 lots of emails: those on her personal server and those hacked from the DNC. Some of both appear on WikiLeaks AFAIK.

    It's also confusing because she talks about "pages" of emails which may actually mean she handed over printed pages. Talk about being as obstructive and difficult as possible - she should have handed over the hard-drive / server!

    As for Timothy McVeigh - are you kidding? We have his own claims outlining what he did and why which matches the evidence. Corruption can exist at any level in law enforcement and affect many different cases, I don't see any reason to question his guilt or that investigation as there was actual evidence presented in court.

    Hard evidence is completely lacking in the Trump dossier case, which is why we should question it.

  • slimboyfat
    slimboyfat

    How can we spend time arguing about these details when we are facing the Trumpocalypse!

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit