(02-02-2021 05:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 04:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And since this thread was started to discuss a few members of the House of Representatives, preferably you would describe something that a member of the House believes.

See post# 262

Sorry, I inadvertently skipped ~10 posts in annoyance after reading part of one of Tanq's posts.

I don't consider something from the WSJ editorial board to be objective or news. I would still accept it at least of a description of the Trump-Russia "conspiracy" if that is what it described. But what you posted just seems to describe why the WSJ editorial board doesn't like Adam Schiff.

And like Lad mentioned above, the Mueller Report is a lot more thorough on Trump-Russia than what I could read of this WSJ editorial board post. It also doesn't really describe what OO seems to believe that "leftists" believe about Trump-Russia.

But I do apologize for missing your post. It was an oversight on my part.

Reaching a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted, and it's frustrating that this argument continues to be made despite some really damning evidence that has never been refuted.

Jr alone replying how he would love to get some dirt on Hillary released, then meeting with a Russian lobbyist and former counterintelligence officer, then lying about the purpose of the meeting, should be enough to raise alarm bells and warrant an investigation. So this talking point about how it was all an illusion is bunk.

I agree that some of the more salacious ideas parroted by talking heads, liberals, etc. were unfounded and crazy (paging Louise Mensch and the espionage tweet). But the crazy conspiracies of those from some on the left don't invalidate the very real activities that raised alarm bells in the intelligence community.

If the campaign was in collusion with the Russians, why would they need or want a meeting with that lawyer iin the TT?

And of course I am sure plenty of people in every campaign would love to get some dirt on the other candidate. Why do you that is so singular? If somebody had evidence that Trump was a ___________, thi8nkk Biden's campaign would stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la? Who paid for the Steele Dossier and leaked it to friendly media?



You sure are reading a lot into that meeting that just wasn't there.

(02-02-2021 10:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 04:54 PM)mrbig Wrote:  And since this thread was started to discuss a few members of the House of Representatives, preferably you would describe something that a member of the House believes.

See post# 262

Sorry, I inadvertently skipped ~10 posts in annoyance after reading part of one of Tanq's posts.

I don't consider something from the WSJ editorial board to be objective or news. I would still accept it at least of a description of the Trump-Russia "conspiracy" if that is what it described. But what you posted just seems to describe why the WSJ editorial board doesn't like Adam Schiff.

And like Lad mentioned above, the Mueller Report is a lot more thorough on Trump-Russia than what I could read of this WSJ editorial board post. It also doesn't really describe what OO seems to believe that "leftists" believe about Trump-Russia.

But I do apologize for missing your post. It was an oversight on my part.

Reaching a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted, and it's frustrating that this argument continues to be made despite some really damning evidence that has never been refuted.

Jr alone replying how he would love to get some dirt on Hillary released, then meeting with a Russian lobbyist and former counterintelligence officer, then lying about the purpose of the meeting, should be enough to raise alarm bells and warrant an investigation. So this talking point about how it was all an illusion is bunk.

I agree that some of the more salacious ideas parroted by talking heads, liberals, etc. were unfounded and crazy (paging Louise Mensch and the espionage tweet). But the crazy conspiracies of those from some on the left don't invalidate the very real activities that raised alarm bells in the intelligence community.

If the campaign was in collusion with the Russians, why would they need or want a meeting with that lawyer iin the TT?

Great question! I’m glad there was an investigation into it that showed there was not direct evidence of collusion. That meeting could have been the start of a relationship where the Trump inner circle established a relationship with and started working closely with some Russian assets, but it looks like it wasn’t.

Quote:And of course I am sure plenty of people in every campaign would love to get some dirt on the other candidate. Why do you that is so singular? If somebody had evidence that Trump was a ___________, thi8nkk Biden's campaign would stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la? Who paid for the Steele Dossier and leaked it to friendly media?



You sure are reading a lot into that meeting that just wasn't there.

If a foreign entity offered dirt on Trump, I think Biden’s campaign would have contacted the FBI. There is historical precedent for just that - not every candidate and their campaign are/were as morally bankrupt as Trump and his campaign.

And I’m not reading meaning into that meeting, I’m literally saying that the meeting may or may not have had meaning, and that uncertainty was enough to investigate further.

Same with Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian asset - not at all a smoking gun, but a clearly concerning act warranting investigation.

(02-03-2021 07:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:11 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  See post# 262

Sorry, I inadvertently skipped ~10 posts in annoyance after reading part of one of Tanq's posts.

I don't consider something from the WSJ editorial board to be objective or news. I would still accept it at least of a description of the Trump-Russia "conspiracy" if that is what it described. But what you posted just seems to describe why the WSJ editorial board doesn't like Adam Schiff.

And like Lad mentioned above, the Mueller Report is a lot more thorough on Trump-Russia than what I could read of this WSJ editorial board post. It also doesn't really describe what OO seems to believe that "leftists" believe about Trump-Russia.

But I do apologize for missing your post. It was an oversight on my part.

Reaching a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted, and it's frustrating that this argument continues to be made despite some really damning evidence that has never been refuted.

Jr alone replying how he would love to get some dirt on Hillary released, then meeting with a Russian lobbyist and former counterintelligence officer, then lying about the purpose of the meeting, should be enough to raise alarm bells and warrant an investigation. So this talking point about how it was all an illusion is bunk.

I agree that some of the more salacious ideas parroted by talking heads, liberals, etc. were unfounded and crazy (paging Louise Mensch and the espionage tweet). But the crazy conspiracies of those from some on the left don't invalidate the very real activities that raised alarm bells in the intelligence community.

If the campaign was in collusion with the Russians, why would they need or want a meeting with that lawyer iin the TT?

Great question! I’m glad there was an investigation into it that showed there was not direct evidence of collusion. That meeting could have been the start of a relationship where the Trump inner circle established a relationship with and started working closely with some Russian assets, but it looks like it wasn’t.

Quote:And of course I am sure plenty of people in every campaign would love to get some dirt on the other candidate. Why do you that is so singular? If somebody had evidence that Trump was a ___________, thi8nkk Biden's campaign would stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la? Who paid for the Steele Dossier and leaked it to friendly media?



You sure are reading a lot into that meeting that just wasn't there.

If a foreign entity offered dirt on Trump, I think Biden’s campaign would have contacted the FBI. There is historical precedent for just that - not every candidate and their campaign are/were as morally bankrupt as Trump and his campaign.

And I’m not reading meaning into that meeting, I’m literally saying that the meeting may or may not have had meaning, and that uncertainty was enough to investigate further.

Same with Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian asset - not at all a smoking gun, but a clearly concerning act warranting investigation.

I guess we will never change your "open mind", not with logic or facts.

If every meeting "could have been the start", we need to investigate every politician and official in Washington. If that is sufficient to justify a witch hunt, nobody anywhere is safe. I spoke to a Russian just a few years back. I guess that could have been the start of a spy ring. Smells like smoke.

I think the Bidens and Clintons, being professional politicians, would have handled the TT thing differently. They would have had several layers of deniability between them and the source, so if it all blows up they could fire some gopher. But they would have found a way to get the info.

Seems odd that you think Manafort giving polling data to Russians is a red flag. All they need to get polling data is to turn on the TV or commission a poll. Was this super top secret military grade polling data, that only the US military had? And what would have been the use of the polling data? So the Russians could put ads in The Detroit Free Beacon rather than the Baltimore Sun? And by targeting their ads better, steal the campaign by inducing voters to vote this way instead of that? Isn't that what everybody does?

Yet at the same time you are touting these two relatively innocent actions, you turn a blind eye to the procurement of the Steele Dossier and the illegal use of it. Interesting also that a 20 minute meeting with a Russian lawyer obtained under false pretenses that ended with the lawyer rejected is evidence that needs investigating, but a five year sexual liaison with a Chinese spy by a prominent member of congress is of no importance to you.

DDS. Making mountains out of molehills and at the same time ignoring the mountains in their own backyard.

(02-03-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 07:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:39 PM)mrbig Wrote:  Sorry, I inadvertently skipped ~10 posts in annoyance after reading part of one of Tanq's posts.

I don't consider something from the WSJ editorial board to be objective or news. I would still accept it at least of a description of the Trump-Russia "conspiracy" if that is what it described. But what you posted just seems to describe why the WSJ editorial board doesn't like Adam Schiff.

And like Lad mentioned above, the Mueller Report is a lot more thorough on Trump-Russia than what I could read of this WSJ editorial board post. It also doesn't really describe what OO seems to believe that "leftists" believe about Trump-Russia.

But I do apologize for missing your post. It was an oversight on my part.

Reaching a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted, and it's frustrating that this argument continues to be made despite some really damning evidence that has never been refuted.

Jr alone replying how he would love to get some dirt on Hillary released, then meeting with a Russian lobbyist and former counterintelligence officer, then lying about the purpose of the meeting, should be enough to raise alarm bells and warrant an investigation. So this talking point about how it was all an illusion is bunk.

I agree that some of the more salacious ideas parroted by talking heads, liberals, etc. were unfounded and crazy (paging Louise Mensch and the espionage tweet). But the crazy conspiracies of those from some on the left don't invalidate the very real activities that raised alarm bells in the intelligence community.

If the campaign was in collusion with the Russians, why would they need or want a meeting with that lawyer iin the TT?

Great question! I’m glad there was an investigation into it that showed there was not direct evidence of collusion. That meeting could have been the start of a relationship where the Trump inner circle established a relationship with and started working closely with some Russian assets, but it looks like it wasn’t.

Quote:And of course I am sure plenty of people in every campaign would love to get some dirt on the other candidate. Why do you that is so singular? If somebody had evidence that Trump was a ___________, thi8nkk Biden's campaign would stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la? Who paid for the Steele Dossier and leaked it to friendly media?



You sure are reading a lot into that meeting that just wasn't there.

If a foreign entity offered dirt on Trump, I think Biden’s campaign would have contacted the FBI. There is historical precedent for just that - not every candidate and their campaign are/were as morally bankrupt as Trump and his campaign.

And I’m not reading meaning into that meeting, I’m literally saying that the meeting may or may not have had meaning, and that uncertainty was enough to investigate further.

Same with Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian asset - not at all a smoking gun, but a clearly concerning act warranting investigation.

I guess we will never change your "open mind", not with logic or facts.

If every meeting "could have been the start", we need to investigate every politician and official in Washington. If that is sufficient to justify a witch hunt, nobody anywhere is safe. I spoke to a Russian just a few years back. I guess that could have been the start of a spy ring. Smells like smoke.

I think the Bidens and Clintons, being professional politicians, would have handled the TT thing differently. They would have had several layers of deniability between them and the source, so if it all blows up they could fire some gopher. But they would have found a way to get the info.

Seems odd that you think Manafort giving polling data to Russians is a red flag. All they need to get polling data is to turn on the TV or commission a poll. Was this super top secret military grade polling data, that only the US military had? And what would have been the use of the polling data? So the Russians could put ads in The Detroit Free Beacon rather than the Baltimore Sun? And by targeting their ads better, steal the campaign by inducing voters to vote this way instead of that? Isn't that what everybody does?

Yet at the same time you are touting these two relatively innocent actions, you turn a blind eye to the procurement of the Steele Dossier and the illegal use of it. Interesting also that a 20 minute meeting with a Russian lawyer obtained under false pretenses that ended with the lawyer rejected is evidence that needs investigating, but a five year sexual liaison with a Chinese spy by a prominent member of congress is of no importance to you.

DDS. Making mountains out of molehills and at the same time ignoring the mountains in their own backyard.

We aren't talking about the dossier - so no blind eye. I repeatedly said I would be fine with an investigation into both the funding and the information within it.

(02-03-2021 09:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 07:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 10:28 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-02-2021 05:58 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Reaching a verdict of not guilty doesn't mean an investigation wasn't warranted, and it's frustrating that this argument continues to be made despite some really damning evidence that has never been refuted.

Jr alone replying how he would love to get some dirt on Hillary released, then meeting with a Russian lobbyist and former counterintelligence officer, then lying about the purpose of the meeting, should be enough to raise alarm bells and warrant an investigation. So this talking point about how it was all an illusion is bunk.

I agree that some of the more salacious ideas parroted by talking heads, liberals, etc. were unfounded and crazy (paging Louise Mensch and the espionage tweet). But the crazy conspiracies of those from some on the left don't invalidate the very real activities that raised alarm bells in the intelligence community.

If the campaign was in collusion with the Russians, why would they need or want a meeting with that lawyer iin the TT?

Great question! I’m glad there was an investigation into it that showed there was not direct evidence of collusion. That meeting could have been the start of a relationship where the Trump inner circle established a relationship with and started working closely with some Russian assets, but it looks like it wasn’t.

Quote:And of course I am sure plenty of people in every campaign would love to get some dirt on the other candidate. Why do you that is so singular? If somebody had evidence that Trump was a ___________, thi8nkk Biden's campaign would stick their fingers in their ears and go la la la? Who paid for the Steele Dossier and leaked it to friendly media?



You sure are reading a lot into that meeting that just wasn't there.

If a foreign entity offered dirt on Trump, I think Biden’s campaign would have contacted the FBI. There is historical precedent for just that - not every candidate and their campaign are/were as morally bankrupt as Trump and his campaign.

And I’m not reading meaning into that meeting, I’m literally saying that the meeting may or may not have had meaning, and that uncertainty was enough to investigate further.

Same with Manafort providing internal polling data to a Russian asset - not at all a smoking gun, but a clearly concerning act warranting investigation.

I guess we will never change your "open mind", not with logic or facts.

If every meeting "could have been the start", we need to investigate every politician and official in Washington. If that is sufficient to justify a witch hunt, nobody anywhere is safe. I spoke to a Russian just a few years back. I guess that could have been the start of a spy ring. Smells like smoke.

I think the Bidens and Clintons, being professional politicians, would have handled the TT thing differently. They would have had several layers of deniability between them and the source, so if it all blows up they could fire some gopher. But they would have found a way to get the info.

Seems odd that you think Manafort giving polling data to Russians is a red flag. All they need to get polling data is to turn on the TV or commission a poll. Was this super top secret military grade polling data, that only the US military had? And what would have been the use of the polling data? So the Russians could put ads in The Detroit Free Beacon rather than the Baltimore Sun? And by targeting their ads better, steal the campaign by inducing voters to vote this way instead of that? Isn't that what everybody does?

Yet at the same time you are touting these two relatively innocent actions, you turn a blind eye to the procurement of the Steele Dossier and the illegal use of it. Interesting also that a 20 minute meeting with a Russian lawyer obtained under false pretenses that ended with the lawyer rejected is evidence that needs investigating, but a five year sexual liaison with a Chinese spy by a prominent member of congress is of no importance to you.

DDS. Making mountains out of molehills and at the same time ignoring the mountains in their own backyard.

We aren't talking about the dossier - so no blind eye. I repeatedly said I would be fine with an investigation into both the funding and the information within it.

already done

A spokesperson for a law firm said on Tuesday that it had hired Washington-based researchers last year to gather damaging information about Mr. Trump on numerous subjects — including possible ties to Russia — on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the D.N.C.

The revelation, which emerged from a letter filed in court on Tuesday, is likely to fuel new partisan attacks over federal and congressional investigations into Russia’s attempts to disrupt last year’s election and whether any of Mr. Trump’s associates assisted in the effort.

"gather damaging information"? Oh, NO,, I am sure they would have just turned the info over to the FBI and not used it in the campaign, since their strength is as that of ten because their hearts are pure.

Steele dossier sub-source accused of being Russian spy
I guess, by your standards, this is enough to merit a three year investigation into Clinton-Russia collusion.

The ridiculous thing about OO’s obsession with the Steele dossier is that it wasn’t even public until after the election. Regardless of how closely you think the Clinton campaign was to the production of the dossier, they did not use it to help beat Trump during the election. Rather it was circulated within some law enforcement and intelligence circles whose investigations were not discussed in the same way as “but her emails” was discussed. Also, it would have been much more fishy if it had been Chelsea Clinton or Mark Rich sitting down with sources digging around for dirt than if it is an employee of a contractor who was hired by a firm who was hired by another firm who was hired by an attorney.

(02-03-2021 09:48 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The ridiculous thing about OO’s obsession with the Steele dossier is that it wasn’t even public until after the election. Regardless of how closely you think the Clinton campaign was to the production of the dossier, they did not use it to help beat Trump during the election. Rather it was circulated within some law enforcement and intelligence circles whose investigations were not discussed in the same way as “but her emails” was discussed. Also, it would have been much more fishy if it had been Chelsea Clinton or Mark Rich sitting down with sources digging around for dirt than if it is an employee of a contractor who was hired by a firm who was hired by another firm who was hired by an attorney.

To your bolded statement, I have already said the Clintons and their team, being profession politicians, would have known better than to be directly involved, needing the plausible deniability that the amateurs in the Trump Campaign failed to provide.

What you describe in the bolded is precisely plausible deniability.

Trump's team did this much more stupidly than Clinton's team, but the essence is the same, and it is not treated the same. Both teams turned to Russia for dirt, Trump's team for 20 minutes, Clinton's for months and millions worth of research. Just wanting you guys to either stop making that 20 minutes the centerpiece of your case or at least to acknowledge that both sides look for dirt.

(02-03-2021 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To your bolded statement, I have already said the Clintons and their team, being profession politicians, would have known better than to be directly involved, needing the plausible deniability that the amateurs in the Trump Campaign failed to provide.

What you describe in the bolded is precisely plausible deniability.

Trump's team did this much more stupidly than Clinton's team, but the essence is the same, and it is not treated the same. Both teams turned to Russia for dirt, Trump's team for 20 minutes, Clinton's for months and millions worth of research. Just wanting you guys to either stop making that 20 minutes the centerpiece of your case or at least to acknowledge that both sides look for dirt.

Both siderism at its best! To me, there is a tremendous difference between hiring someone who hires someone who hires someone who makes their own independent decisions about who they interview and talk to in compiling a report, and just sitting down with the russians on your own. But if you believe those are the same, you are entitled to your belief. Cling to it and cherish it! Also, the 20-min TT meeting was hardly the only contact. I'm honestly not that educated on how the Steele dossier was used or not used.

I started this thread because I was curious about what people think about Greene/Boebert/Cawthorne. I don't think there is some vast leftwing conspiracy about Trump-Russia and I haven't seen any objective evidence that there are a bunch of "lefties" out there believing something that is anything approaching QAnon. It doesn't sound like you are a QAnon adherent, which is great, and it does not sound like you agree with Rep. Greene that Parkland or Sandy Hook were false flag attacks, which is also great.

It sounds like if she was your Representative, you would vote for someone else in the primary. I'm curious whether you would vote for someone like Greene if the only alternative was a Democrat (because I know you have voted for Democrats in the past). If so, I am curious what kind of Democrat would have you draw a line where you would not vote for them over someone like Greene (maybe you would support a Manchin-like dem, but not a Buttigieg-like dem)? Maybe Greene is so far out there that you would never vote for her and would just vote 3rd party? Those are the kinds of things I am curious about.

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To your bolded statement, I have already said the Clintons and their team, being profession politicians, would have known better than to be directly involved, needing the plausible deniability that the amateurs in the Trump Campaign failed to provide.

What you describe in the bolded is precisely plausible deniability.

Trump's team did this much more stupidly than Clinton's team, but the essence is the same, and it is not treated the same. Both teams turned to Russia for dirt, Trump's team for 20 minutes, Clinton's for months and millions worth of research. Just wanting you guys to either stop making that 20 minutes the centerpiece of your case or at least to acknowledge that both sides look for dirt.

Both siderism at its best! To me, there is a tremendous difference between hiring someone who hires someone who hires someone who makes their own independent decisions about who they interview and talk to in compiling a report, and just sitting down with the russians on your own.

How many cutouts are needed to get past the mr big hurdle?

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I started this thread because I was curious about what people think about Greene/Boebert/Cawthorne.

To bring it back to that original post, the first paragraph of this thread stated your assumption that most conservative opposition to certain prominent left-wing Democrats must be racist or sexist, and asked conservatives here to explain how they are different. It was immediately pointed out that such a query is at least mildly insulting. While the query may not have generated the response you were seeking, it's not entirely clear that a response was deserved.

I've been sitting on the sidelines popping popcorn for most of this thread, and I know these comments aren't directed toward me, but I do have a couple of points that I feel compelled to make.

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Both siderism at its best! To me, there is a tremendous difference between hiring someone who hires someone who hires someone who makes their own independent decisions about who they interview and talk to in compiling a report...

If those decisions are truly independent, perhaps. If they are told, "Go find dirt any way you can," and the A hires B hires C is strictly for the purpose of giving plausible deniability, and at least the C in that chain is well known to be a hyper partisan hack, as appears to be the case here, nope.

Quote:I started this thread because I was curious about what people think about Greene/Boebert/Cawthorne. I don't think there is some vast leftwing conspiracy about Trump-Russia and I haven't seen any objective evidence that there are a bunch of "lefties" out there believing something that is anything approaching QAnon.

I don't think there is a vast leftwing conspiracy about Trump-Russia, but I do think there was a small but powerful concerted left-wing effort about Trump-Russia. Conspiracies are inherently secret, but they made no bones about this one, so conspiracy really doesn't fit.

Quote:It doesn't sound like you are a QAnon adherent, which is great, and it does not sound like you agree with Rep. Greene that Parkland or Sandy Hook were false flag attacks, which is also great.

Who died and left you in charge of grading other people's political beliefs?

Quote:It sounds like if she was your Representative, you would vote for someone else in the primary. I'm curious whether you would vote for someone like Greene if the only alternative was a Democrat (because I know you have voted for Democrats in the past).

I would have voted for Greene's republican opponent in the primary. I find it absolutely shocking that she won the primary, on the order of Roy Moore winning the republican senate primary a few years back next door in Alabama, both examples of my republicans are the stupid party concept. In the general, I would probably have voted libertarian if one were available. Otherwise maybe not voted, depending on the democrat. If the democrat were an AOC/Tlaib/Omar/Pressley type radical, I would have voted for Greene as the lesser of evils.

I vote strictly on issues. I see electing a congress critter as appointing a proxy to vote for me, and I want someone who is going to vote the way I would want him/her to vote. I really don't care what a candidate thinks about things that are unlikely to come up for a vote. I doubt very seriously that any of Greene's crazy ideas would actually come to any sort of vote.

Let's put the shoe on the other foot. You have a choice of an AOC/Tlaib/Omar/Pressley democrat or a republican. Which would you choose? And if it depends upon the republican, what kind of republican it would take to gain your vote over a radical democrat?

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 09:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  To your bolded statement, I have already said the Clintons and their team, being profession politicians, would have known better than to be directly involved, needing the plausible deniability that the amateurs in the Trump Campaign failed to provide.

What you describe in the bolded is precisely plausible deniability.

Trump's team did this much more stupidly than Clinton's team, but the essence is the same, and it is not treated the same. Both teams turned to Russia for dirt, Trump's team for 20 minutes, Clinton's for months and millions worth of research. Just wanting you guys to either stop making that 20 minutes the centerpiece of your case or at least to acknowledge that both sides look for dirt.

Both siderism at its best! To me, there is a tremendous difference between hiring someone who hires someone who hires someone who makes their own independent decisions about who they interview and talk to in compiling a report, and just sitting down with the russians on your own. But if you believe those are the same, you are entitled to your belief. Cling to it and cherish it! Also, the 20-min TT meeting was hardly the only contact. I'm honestly not that educated on how the Steele dossier was used or not used.

Lots of leftsiders claiming ignorance on the news of the last four years. Shocking.

On what grounds do we assume that anything at any level was Independent? I think it was much more likely a wink and nudge, followed by an "I don't want to know how you do it". The whole point of the levels is plausible deniability, not seeting people free to run amok doing who knows what on your dime.

For example, if you hire XYZ to do a task, such as fix your fence, and they subcontract to ABC, who hires Joe, who brings along his brother in law, you still expect your fence to be fixed, not a stream diverted through your backyard because brother in law was thinking independently.

Quote: It doesn't sound like you are a QAnon adherent, which is great, and it does not sound like you agree with Rep. Greene that Parkland or Sandy Hook were false flag attacks, which is also great.

It doesn't sound like you are a murderous revolutionary, which is great!

personally, I think common sense dictates that parkland and Sandy Hook are NOT false flag events. The same common sense I use to say that the Russia probe was unwarranted and that the Steele Dossier was not some guy operating at completely loose ends with no goal other than what he picked up in the coffee shop.

I don't know much at the Q-thing. never heard of it until you guys started thinking it was a widespead cancer among conservative. Sounds crazy to me.

Quote:It sounds like if she was your Representative, you would vote for someone else in the primary. I'm curious whether you would vote for someone like Greene if the only alternative was a Democrat (because I know you have voted for Democrats in the past). If so, I am curious what kind of Democrat would have you draw a line where you would not vote for them over someone like Greene (maybe you would support a Manchin-like dem, but not a Buttigieg-like dem)? Maybe Greene is so far out there that you would never vote for her and would just vote 3rd party? Those are the kinds of things I am curious about.

Oddly enough, I had this conversation with my GF just a couple of hours ago.

Yes, if I knew all this stuff, I would vote for somebody else in the primary.

In the general it might be a tough choice because it would depend on the Democrat and their stance on issues. If the democrat was moderate, I might vote for them. If it was somebody batshit crazy or evil, like Waters, Schiff, Omar, or AOC, I might end up voting for Greene just to keep the greater evil out. Even if both choices are bad, one is usually worse. Most likely, I would abstain in that race, as I did in the 2016 presidential race, or vote third party, which I have done before (even voted Green(no final e) once).

(02-03-2021 12:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I started this thread because I was curious about what people think about Greene/Boebert/Cawthorne.

To bring it back to that original post, the first paragraph of this thread stated your assumption that most conservative opposition to certain prominent left-wing Democrats must be racist or sexist, and asked conservatives here to explain how they are different. It was immediately pointed out that such a query is at least mildly insulting. While the query may not have generated the response you were seeking, it's not entirely clear that a response was deserved.

A nicely executed side-step! I didn’t say racist or sexist. I was really meaning to suggest more implicit bias, not actual racism or sexism. I also made clear I did not think it was true for anyone around here. I also said I though “part of it” was these implicit biases, I did not say “most conservative opposition” was because of what I perceived to be implicit biases. I apologize for the mild insult, that isn’t what I was going for.

(02-04-2021 12:11 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 12:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I started this thread because I was curious about what people think about Greene/Boebert/Cawthorne.

To bring it back to that original post, the first paragraph of this thread stated your assumption that most conservative opposition to certain prominent left-wing Democrats must be racist or sexist, and asked conservatives here to explain how they are different. It was immediately pointed out that such a query is at least mildly insulting. While the query may not have generated the response you were seeking, it's not entirely clear that a response was deserved.

A nicely executed side-step! [I didn’t say racist or sexist. I was really meaning to suggest more implicit bias, not actual racism or sexism. I also made clear I did not think it was true for anyone around here. I also said I though “part of it” was these implicit biases, I did not say “most conservative opposition” was because of what I perceived to be implicit biases. I apologize for the mild insult, that isn’t what I was going for.

What you said was :

"I always thought part of it was because they were women of color. "

Sounds very racist/sexist to me.

What implicit biases are you speaking of, specifically?

(02-03-2021 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

‘mrbig’ Wrote:It doesn't sound like you are a QAnon adherent, which is great, and it does not sound like you agree with Rep. Greene that Parkland or Sandy Hook were false flag attacks, which is also great.

Who died and left you in charge of grading other people's political beliefs?

I mean, “don’t be a lunatic who believes in insane conspiracy theories that lead you to threaten violence against others” is a pretty low bar to clear. I feel ok grading people at that basic level.

(02-03-2021 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I vote strictly on issues.

I do not vote strictly on the issues and I believe someone needs a certain level of decency/humanity/lawfulness. So for instance I would never have voted for former New Orleans-area congressman William Jefferson and would have voted for Republican Joseph Cao (though I lived in a different district during that election).

(02-03-2021 12:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Let's put the shoe on the other foot. You have a choice of an AOC/Tlaib/Omar/Pressley democrat or a republican. Which would you choose? And if it depends upon the republican, what kind of republican it would take to gain your vote over a radical democrat?

I have said this before, but I really don’t follow The Squad closely and never understood the right’s fascination with or negativity toward them. So I really don’t know enough about them to make that kind of judgment.

My perception of AOC is that she is extremely liberal on the issues, but I have not heard of any significant decency/humanity/lawfulness issues with her that would lead me to vote for a Republican over her. Even though she seems to be way to the left of me on issues and I would likely vote for someone else during a primary, I understand that she is a fringe member of the party (on the issues) and that her positions are not getting voted into law. So in that sense my vote would be more for helping democrats control congress over republicans, not for my enthusiasm for her policies.

I know next to nothing about Pressley and really can’t comment.

I feel like Tlaib and Omar said a few things that were taken out of context and got a bad rap for it. To me they appeared to be isolated incidents, but again it isn’t something I have looked at closely. I would inform myself better before making any voting decisions. I have no idea where either stands on the issues.

(02-03-2021 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  On what grounds do we assume that anything at any level was Independent? I think it was much more likely a wink and nudge, followed by an "I don't want to know how you do it".

On what grounds do you assume “it was much more likely a wink and a nudge”? I haven’t heard any evidence of such nefariousness, though I am open to hearing it from a reasonable source if you can provide one.

(02-03-2021 04:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ... vote third party, which I have done before (even voted Green(no final e) once).

(02-04-2021 12:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:11 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 12:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I started this thread because I was curious about what people think about Greene/Boebert/Cawthorne.

To bring it back to that original post, the first paragraph of this thread stated your assumption that most conservative opposition to certain prominent left-wing Democrats must be racist or sexist, and asked conservatives here to explain how they are different. It was immediately pointed out that such a query is at least mildly insulting. While the query may not have generated the response you were seeking, it's not entirely clear that a response was deserved.

A nicely executed side-step! [I didn’t say racist or sexist. I was really meaning to suggest more implicit bias, not actual racism or sexism. I also made clear I did not think it was true for anyone around here. I also said I though “part of it” was these implicit biases, I did not say “most conservative opposition” was because of what I perceived to be implicit biases. I apologize for the mild insult, that isn’t what I was going for.

What you said was :

"I always thought part of it was because they were women of color. "

Sounds very racist/sexist to me.

What implicit biases are you speaking of, specifically?

I thought the implication was implicitly obvious, though far from nefarious.

Big, you said this to me:

"It doesn't sound like you are a QAnon adherent, which is great, and it does not sound like you agree with Rep. Greene that Parkland or Sandy Hook were false flag attacks, which is also great."

It is not "great" it is the expected position of somebody using commonsense, as 99% (est) of right wingers do on those matters. It should be of no more surprise than that they look both ways before crossing the street.

If I were to say, Big, I think you don't indulge in domestic violence, which is great would you take that as a compliment? I take it as the expected baseline behavior. Nothing great about doing what one should do. It's great that you pay your taxes.

That is why I snarkily complimented you back with:

"It doesn't sound like you are a murderous revolutionary, which is great!"

BTW, I also think the word "great" is misused and overused. I would advise leaving it to Tony the Tiger.

(02-04-2021 01:03 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:28 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2021 12:11 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 12:00 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(02-03-2021 11:42 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I started this thread because I was curious about what people think about Greene/Boebert/Cawthorne.

To bring it back to that original post, the first paragraph of this thread stated your assumption that most conservative opposition to certain prominent left-wing Democrats must be racist or sexist, and asked conservatives here to explain how they are different. It was immediately pointed out that such a query is at least mildly insulting. While the query may not have generated the response you were seeking, it's not entirely clear that a response was deserved.

A nicely executed side-step! [I didn’t say racist or sexist. I was really meaning to suggest more implicit bias, not actual racism or sexism. I also made clear I did not think it was true for anyone around here. I also said I though “part of it” was these implicit biases, I did not say “most conservative opposition” was because of what I perceived to be implicit biases. I apologize for the mild insult, that isn’t what I was going for.

What you said was :

"I always thought part of it was because they were women of color. "

Sounds very racist/sexist to me.

What implicit biases are you speaking of, specifically?

I thought the implication was implicitly obvious, though far from nefarious.

Not obvious to me what you are thinking, spell it out.

I thought AOC was interesting, until I heard her GND, which a couple of you have been at pains to be ignorant of.

I started disliking her when she made the claim that illegal immigrants were forced to drink from toilets, find it odd that a party so focused on "lies" ignores that.