Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: I gave you a link to the whole transcript. Not leaning partisan, just following the facts. Partisan would be to ignore them. You gave the link (which I already linked by the way) only after you claimed that your statement was absolute truth -- when it wasn't. It was spin and weak spin at that. ****************** 4
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You gave the link (which I already linked by the way) only after you claimed that your statement was absolute truth -- when it wasn't. It was spin and weak spin at that. ****************** You can't spin direct quotes, but you can misinterpret them, which is what you did. He word for word asked to refrain from escalation. I don't care if you want to try to redefine words to suit your narrative. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, daz28 said: You can't spin direct quotes, but you can misinterpret them, which is what you did. He word for word asked to refrain from escalation. I don't care if you want to try to redefine words to suit your narrative. Now you're just being purposefully stupid. He asked to refrain from escalating EXPULSIONS not sanctions. And he asked not to escalate expulsions to preserve the Moscow Embassy's functionality so that the US and Russia could continue to work together to fight ISIS in the ME which was an Obama policy at that moment. You're wrong. You're trying to spin and redefine the truth because your cognitive dissonance is hurting your brain. You've been lied to for so long on this matter that you're now refusing to see the truth when it's right in front of you. Do better. 1
Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: You can't spin direct quotes, but you can misinterpret them, which is what you did. He word for word asked to refrain from escalation. I don't care if you want to try to redefine words to suit your narrative. Why is it so important to you that we have an escalating conflict with Russia? I can see why a Chinese loyalist would like to see that, but not from an American. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster.
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, Reality Check said: Why is it so important to you that we have an escalating conflict with Russia? I can see why a Chinese loyalist would like to see that, but not from an American. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster. You couldn't have worded this as any more of an assumption than you just did, so kudos for that. I can just as easily reverse it, and say why are you so hell bent on letting Russian election interference slide. As I said, the reasoning why he did what he did is up for debate, but that's for another day. How you snuck China in there is a real head scratcher.
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: As I said, the reasoning why he did what he did is up for debate, but that's for another day. That statement alone shows your complete ignorance of what this has always been about. It was an attempted coup. Led by the CIA and the outgoing administration, designed to overthrow a legally elected president because they disagreed with whom the American people voted for. They worked to SUBVERT our republic and democracy, not support it. And to do so, they made up a story about Russians doing what they themselves actually did. They lied to you for three + years. That is undeniable at this point. Yet you're still denying it. Ask yourself why. 2
Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: You couldn't have worded this as any more of an assumption than you just did, so kudos for that. I can just as easily reverse it, and say why are you so hell bent on letting Russian election interference slide. As I said, the reasoning why he did what he did is up for debate, but that's for another day. How you snuck China in there is a real head scratcher. Remind me again, which Russians interfered in our elections? Any names? Last I checked, dozens of countries run propaganda programs in the US to influence policy, and they spend billions doing it. You aren't a big picture guy at all. Obama had it in for Flynn because Flynn went public with Obama's support of ISIS. 2
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Look I get that you're trying to tie the lie to the bigger picture, and again that's certainly debatable, too. All I'm saying is that trying to change the semantics of the lie doesn't change the lie
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 2 minutes ago, Reality Check said: ... Obama had it in for Flynn because Flynn went public with Obama's support of ISIS. And that operation (to oust Flynn) started in 2014 -- two years before any "Russian interference", let alone any Trump candidacy. 2 1
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: That statement alone shows your complete ignorance of what this has always been about. It was an attempted coup. Led by the CIA and the outgoing administration, designed to overthrow a legally elected president because they disagreed with whom the American people voted for. They worked to SUBVERT our republic and democracy, not support it. And to do so, they made up a story about Russians doing what they themselves actually did. They lied to you for three + years. That is undeniable at this point. Yet you're still denying it. Ask yourself why. I didn't deny that. If I did would you kindly show me where?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: Look I get that you're trying to tie the lie to the bigger picture, and again that's certainly debatable, too. All I'm saying is that trying to change the semantics of the lie doesn't change the lie What lie are you talking about? Just now, daz28 said: I didn't deny that. If I did would you kindly show me where? 53 minutes ago, daz28 said: “I really don’t want us to get into a situation where we’re going, you know, where we do this and then you do something bigger, and then you know, everybody’s got to go back and forth". That is literally what “refrain from escalating” means. Keep the echo chamber going though. "Keep the echo chamber going then"
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: What lie are you talking about? I'm not going to run in circles with you
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: I'm not going to run in circles with you You're not. You're being purposefully dishonest now. I have no idea what lie you're referencing.
Reality Check Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: And that operation (to oust Flynn) started in 2014 -- two years before any "Russian interference", let alone any Trump candidacy. Exactly. That is when the surveillance started, especially since Obama was trying to get tight with the Iranians at that time. 1
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, daz28 said: Look I get that you're trying to tie the lie to the bigger picture, and again that's certainly debatable, too. All I'm saying is that trying to change the semantics of the lie doesn't change the lie This is a nonsense post. Hence me asking you to clarify it.
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 4 minutes ago, Reality Check said: Remind me again, which Russians interfered in our elections? Any names? Last I checked, dozens of countries run propaganda programs in the US to influence policy, and they spend billions doing it. You aren't a big picture guy at all. Obama had it in for Flynn because Flynn went public with Obama's support of ISIS. Do you know more than the Senate intel committee? Is that what you're claiming?
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, Reality Check said: Exactly. That is when the surveillance started, especially since Obama was trying to get tight with the Iranians at that time. And he was doing so by spying on Congress, the media, and other American citizens and politicians at the time. All run through the FBI-CID and DOJ-NSD, and largely done by private contractors (Cough-FusionGPS-Cough) illegally accessing 702 data without proper oversight and warrants. 1 minute ago, daz28 said: Do you know more than the Senate intel committee? Is that what you're claiming? The swampiest committee on the Hill -- and not even they found any evidence of collusion/conspiracy or anything to back up the initial accusations which started this whole shebang. 2
daz28 Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're not. You're being purposefully dishonest now. I have no idea what lie you're referencing. I think Flynn lied, you don't. We'll have to agree to disagree. I gave you the quotes of the lie. As I said, I'm not gonna go round and round about the same thing over and over. 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: The swampiest committee on the Hill -- and not even they found any evidence of collusion/conspiracy or anything to back up the initial accusations which started this whole shebang. Maybe they are swampy, but all they did was agree with what everyone else found: Tuesday’s report falls in line with a January 2017 assessment produced by the CIA, FBI, National Security Agency and others. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/21/senate-intelligence-committee-affirms-russian-inte/
Deranged Rhino Posted May 30, 2020 Posted May 30, 2020 Just now, daz28 said: I think Flynn lied, you don't. The transcripts show he didn't lie. Compare them to the Mueller report and charging documents. Not even the FBI thought Flynn lied when they finished their interview, per the FBI's notes. Your first post today used a disingenuously clipped portion of the transcript to try to prove Flynn lied. It, in fact, proved the opposite when you look at the context and charging documents. Someone is dug in on a position, facts be damned, and it's not me. 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: I gave you the quotes of the lie. And I showed that it wasn't a lie at all. In fact, the clip you posted had nothing to do with the supposed lie he told (which was about sanctions, not expulsions -- and that line was about EXPULSIONS not sanctions). 2 minutes ago, daz28 said: As I said, I'm not gonna go round and round about the same thing over and over. Good news. You don't have to. I already showed what you posted doesn't make the case you think it does. You're wrong. All the way. 2
Recommended Posts