Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 Just now, John Adams said: Here's an easy question: Is it your position that the other 13 agencies disagree with that quote? Another dodge I'd respect you so much more if you just would admit when you get something wrong instead of shamelessly avoiding it. Do you think the NRO has any opinion on Trump/Russia collusion? Is that their purview or mandate? What about the NGIA? Or DEA? Or DoE? Nope. That's not their bailiwick -- there's no reason to include them in the number of agencies who "agree" or "disagree" unless you're trying to deceive people by inflating the value of the ICA. The ICA itself was compiled by three agencies. One of those three, the NSA, which has the most direct oversight on this issue and is best positioned in terms of mission to know what's what when it comes to the question of hacking, Russian meddling, et al -- they put their confidence rate at 50%. Can't have that be the lead in the press in late 2016, not if you're trying to execute a coup and wage a disinformation campaign on the public, can you? Nope. So how do you hide it? By saying a lie (which isn't in the report itself) that "ALL 17 INTEL AGENCIES AGREE". Truth is they did not all agree -- because they were not all involved. And of the ones involved, only TWO agreed. Saying two out of 17 intel agencies agree with ICA is a weak argument when you're trying to convince the world that there was *****ery afoot, no? So they didn't. They lied about it instead and relied on people like you who don't do the work themselves to repeat their lie over and over -- even three years after this lie has been disavowed, just like you did above.
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 42 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Wait, your position is that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed with the ICA's findings? ...Still? Or are we still being dishonest and pretending that's not what you said and what I was referring to? Here's the quote -- from you. This is incorrect information. Long proven to be a lie. And here you are pushing it again. Because you never bothered to understand that it was a lie, why it was a lie, and how that matters. He has a new handle, again--------------------------------Mr. Obtuse. 1
RochesterRob Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 2 hours ago, B-Man said: Warren and Other Dems Call for Fracking Ban — Do they WANT to lose Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? . I hate to admit this but that is smart of them as they are only hoping to get some city folk off of the sofa to vote for them. They most likely have figured that the few landowners affected relative to the overall population in these states are immaterial for their purposes.
DC Tom Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Someone forgot to tell Biden: you never go full gatorman. 1
3rdnlng Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 1 hour ago, RochesterRob said: I hate to admit this but that is smart of them as they are only hoping to get some city folk off of the sofa to vote for them. They most likely have figured that the few landowners affected relative to the overall population in these states are immaterial for their purposes. Fracking has helped the economy of the whole country. Iran recently has been pulling its old bs and has anyone noticed how it has affected us at the gas pump? Also many more people than just landowners profit from fracking. It creates jobs not only in the field but in refineries and transportation.
Wacka Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, jrober38 said: Eliminate the opposition in your party, and then eliminate the opposition. Like Hillary tried to do? Problem is, she F'd up Edited September 23, 2019 by Wacka
John Adams Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: Another dodge I'd respect you so much more if you just would admit when you get something wrong instead of shamelessly avoiding it. Do you think the NRO has any opinion on Trump/Russia collusion? Is that their purview or mandate? What about the NGIA? Or DEA? Or DoE? Nope. That's not their bailiwick -- there's no reason to include them in the number of agencies who "agree" or "disagree" unless you're trying to deceive people by inflating the value of the ICA. The ICA itself was compiled by three agencies. One of those three, the NSA, which has the most direct oversight on this issue and is best positioned in terms of mission to know what's what when it comes to the question of hacking, Russian meddling, et al -- they put their confidence rate at 50%. Can't have that be the lead in the press in late 2016, not if you're trying to execute a coup and wage a disinformation campaign on the public, can you? Nope. So how do you hide it? By saying a lie (which isn't in the report itself) that "ALL 17 INTEL AGENCIES AGREE". Truth is they did not all agree -- because they were not all involved. And of the ones involved, only TWO agreed. Saying two out of 17 intel agencies agree with ICA is a weak argument when you're trying to convince the world that there was *****ery afoot, no? So they didn't. They lied about it instead and relied on people like you who don't do the work themselves to repeat their lie over and over -- even three years after this lie has been disavowed, just like you did above. You can't even answer a simple question. Never admit that the IC was right, DR. Even when Trump admitted it. You and your many followers across the world, logging into to PPP to read your stuff, are the holdouts!
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 Just now, John Adams said: You can't even answer a simple question. Never admit that the IC was right, DR. I'll answer (again) once you admit the quote your'e talking about is NOT the quote I referenced or you cited earlier.
John Adams Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: I'll answer (again) once you admit the quote your'e talking about is NOT the quote I referenced or you cited earlier. Sprechen sie English? I quoted the IC twice dingdong. I can feel your many readers cringing. Come on fans of DR far and wide, register to post here at PPP!
Deranged Rhino Posted September 23, 2019 Posted September 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, John Adams said: I quoted the IC twice dingdong. Both were dodges, not the quote I called you out for and you are (intentionally) trying to run from: On 9/21/2019 at 7:02 PM, John Adams said: The IC report listed 17 agencies that agreed that Russia interefered in our election. That's not a quote from the ICA. That's a falsehood which was debunked on day one by anyone who read the report. Which you have not. 1
John Adams Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said: Both were dodges, not the quote I called you out for and you are (intentionally) trying to run from: That's not a quote from the ICA. That's a falsehood which was debunked on day one by anyone who read the report. Which you have not. Do you need me to post the quote you can't accept a 3rd time? Your fanbase wants to know why you're dodging so much. Why not just tell him that Russia didn't interfere with the election and the IC report was wrong? Edited September 24, 2019 by John Adams
B-Man Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 DNC Makes it Tougher for Lower Tier Candidates to Appear in Fifth Debate Maybe we could call them "Anti-Democracy" or that they are essentially "Cancelling Elections"....? Warren and Other Dems Call for Fracking Ban — Do they WANT to lose Colorado, Ohio, and Pennsylvania? .
B-Man Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 Elizabeth Warren doesn't know how to make the news. I assume the media want to cover Elizabeth Warren and to give her a boost and that she's just not giving them anything. Here's what I saw just now when I used Google news to search her name. It's just various sites re-analyzing the polls (which actually don't show her rising anymore!) and a prompt to switch my attention over to Bernie Sanders More at the link: BUT...................her media support continues.................... .
B-Man Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 Eyes Turn to Elizabeth Warren’s Daughter Following Surprise Endorsement by the Working Families Party By Elizabeth Vaughn In an unexpected move, the Working Families Party (WFP) has endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) after a 60.9% showing in a party wide vote. There are several reasons why this endorsement came as a surprise, especially to supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT). Sanders earned the party’s endorsement in 2016 with an 87% win in an online membership survey and it was widely believed he would receive it again. Warren’s daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, is the Board Chair of liberal think tank, Demos. According to Demos’ 2018 tax filing, they contributed $45,000 to the WFP in 2018, their first donation ever to the party. According to Washington Post reporter Dave Wiegel, this number (Warren’s 60.9%) combines two groups. 50% of the total, or 30.5%, is determined by the votes of WFP leaders and the other 50% is the result an online membership survey. He notes that WFP has dozens of leaders and thousands of members. The party has been asked by skeptics to release the details of the vote, however, they have refused to do so. In 2016, when the WFP endorsed Sanders, they released the separate vote tallies which can be viewed here. According to the Center for Public Integrity, the Warren campaign’s treasurer remains on the board of Demos. Given this set of circumstances, it’s only natural that Sanders’ supporters would be concerned. We won’t be too surprised to hear more about this when/if the Democratic primary turns into a two person race between Sanders and Warren. $45,000 is not a huge number so far as political contributions go, a source familiar with WFP told independent journalist Jordan Chariton that “Demos’ $$ to WFP was a “signal” that there’s more where that came from if WFP were to endorse Warren.” Chariton’s source also informed him that, “at the time of the @ewarren endorsement that they were “broke” and expect more money to come into it as a result of Warren endorsement. In light of this news, it goes without saying….”
Buffalo_Gal Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 Tulsi Gabbard has qualified for the fourth debate 1 2
John Adams Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Tulsi Gabbard has qualified for the fourth debate Wow! I thought we were sticking a fork in her. I'm glad she made it.
IDBillzFan Posted September 24, 2019 Posted September 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said: Tulsi Gabbard has qualified for the fourth debate I love Gabbard. I hope she spends the entire night explaining to everyone that Kamala Harris isn't black.
Recommended Posts