It is a very extreme claim that opposing dts behavior is tearing the country apart. We know a lot of things that he has done. THose things are evidence whiich entitle us to investigate dt until we find out the truth of his dealings.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” Donald is really doing the best he can do at revealing what we need, every day. Just wait a week and this thread will probably be obsolete.
We can discuss evidence without bringing OR into it. I suggest this is sufficient. That’s all I’m saying. If you want to preface your posts going forward as to why OR supports them, fine.
[/QUOTE]
That’s good and all but in this thread you are retreating from evidence, and denying it’s existence, and then kind of saying “I just don’t know what’s going on…Just asking questions” So Occams came in respose to your your obfuscation of the idea of evidence coming into this, that you do not want to recognize.
The prior behaviors, convictions, personalities, prior contacts between the principals, and business moves, are all evidence to this discussion. If you want to shy away you are just retreating from your own topic.
And evidence.
You think that the Steele Dossier is evidence that Trump is not under Putin’s control? Do I have this right?
That’s pretty bonkers.
I believe Ale meant that the Steele Dossier is not evidence that Trump is under Putin’s control.
~Max
I believe that Ale can speak for himself.
Putin considers him “Koristne Budale”, a “Useful Idiot”
I am not retreating from evidence. Just because evidence is posted, that doesn’t mean I have to believe it. I am not convinced by the evidence here, because to me it’s not convincing. It’s that simple. No hard evidence has been presented here that Trump has committed crimes, and yet the whole premise of the argument is Putin is using those supposed crimes against him. If what has been posted here is good enough for you fine. To me it is not. I have no ulterior motives, I assure you. And when “evidence” is presented saying that Trump is a child sex trafficker, I am not going to dignify it with a response. If someone presents something that convinces me, I will say it, as I’ve said before.
I don’t know what you mean about sex trafficker" Is that coming down the pike?
You are asking people to submit evidence in your thread. If evidence is here and you don’t believe it you need to refute it or say why it’s unimportant. But you shouldnt ignore it for obvious reasons of communication.
There is the fact that dt has admitted to crimes on video, audio, and on live tv already. How do you deal with that?
You have been specifically told that this is not the case.
I already posted a link that putin gave dt a gift box in 2013 that no one knows what was inside.
What kind of things in there might it say? What would you say to dt in 2013 if you were vp?
If I was FP I might say “no evidence” based on the “inaccessiblity” of the gift, from our keyboards here in our homes.
But it’s hard to imagine any message in there that could not be destuctive, humiliating, or even convicting of dt.
I don’t think Putin is paying Trump, at least. He’s getting what he wants for free, apparently. I think Trump’s personality – erratic, revengeful, self-absorbed, lacking in any curiosity whatsoever about facts needed for his job, pathetically worshipful of raw brutal power wherever it is in evidence – is explanation enough for what is observably going on.
That was a hurried response, and I retract it. Thanks for pointing this out.
Links and such have been presented about the possibility, for example, of Trump having shady dealings with Deutsche Bank, and perhaps this is what Putin has on him. The evidence is far from convincing however, that crimes were actually committed, let alone that blackmail is going on. Other similar things have been brought up. As I have said more than once here, I am open to the idea that it’s happening, or to the idea that Trump does things to keep Putin happy because he’s looking ahead to future business deal in Russia. I haven’t been convinced of the former, and think the latter is much more plausible.
This is a third way for this: That dt has had an ambition towards populist power, has read the books on it, esp Mein Kampf, which he has on his bedside table, and is going to follow the path of power by his understanding. That’s basically fascism. So he is in a room with vlad and he knows they are brothers in “power.” But when the press is there he is obsequious. This leaves too much unexplained to be satisfying.
One thing to look at is who dt is obsequious to and who he pisses on. Is that evidence?
I am not familiar with the gift box.
future business deals for dt always have criminality in them. It’s generic to his staus as a NY RE tycoon and college scammer. You won’t use his prior business deals as part of your evidence?
What about the gift box/ letter?
It doesn’t even have to be crimes (though I do suspect many were committed, and hopefully will be revealed), but purely financial interests.
Pee tapes, proof of collusion or even treason, those mean nothing to him, true or false. Not getting another extension on his line of credit though…?
It’s a link in a post above.
An example of a conspiracy theory, through and through. While not completely detailed and formulated here, there is no other term for this.