Dat Comey testimony.

The Comey testimony worked entirely in Trumps favor. The dems have nothing now. They never did have anything. Time to put the conspiracy theories and fake news to rest. We should move onto more pressing matters like putting all these leftist lunatic leakers like Reality Winner in jail for a very long time. :)

So then your case boils down to not understanding that classified information can't be aired in public? It's an ongoing investigation. Why are you against said investigation?

Oh I understand that... but like with anything, I want to see it myself before I believe it.

Some people like to call it... not being gullible.

@Maroxad: omfg, dude. Just admit it. You don't want to believe it. You're an extremist reality denier. It's plain as day. No amount of evidence will ever convince you. It's obvious that you don't give a shit about the truth. You're just responding with the same dumb denier bullshit for the sake of replying.

The criteria of evidence I use is no different from the criteria my former physics professor used for him to accept new phenomenon. Which is to say, present the actual evidence. Not the claims.

Oh please. Where is this talk of evidence and proof for Hillary's email server? Everyone here believed that story as soon as the NYT broke it.

Good thing I wasnt one of them then.

Hell, I was arguing against the likes of bmanva on that issue. Hell, I even mentioned the exact same principles.

And that's where the fake Congressional investigation trend is coming to a head. Most of these things are illegitimate, but they make for damn good political campaign fodder. Hell, IIRC correctly we had over a half dozen Benghazi investigations, and the reason for that is obvious: The longer you can sow FUD among the population and undermine the other candidates' credibility (whether warranted or not), the greater your chances are in the subsequent election(s).

It's a waste of time, energy, and money but it's not going to stop. Particularly when appealing to the parties themselves, as abiding by the request would leave that party at a significant disadvantage in the coming years.

I personally do feel that this investigation is fueled more by legitimate concern and not just partisan politics but I'm not necessarily convinced of Trump's guilt. I personally feel like there are more pressing matters to attend to, like his policies and just the overall impression of corruption that Comey gave. However, if he DOES fire Mueller than that would go a long way into convincing me that he's guilty, just the fact that he tried to persuade Comey into dropping the investigation into Flynn definitely makes me wonder....

@Maroxad: ahuh. yeah, no one is buying your crap.

Stop letting your emotions get the better of you. That can go for most of the people in this board.

@SOedipus: Yeah have to agree there.

Ah, a wonderful example of projection. Claim that another is in fact using emotion over reason in an attempt to shut that person down. Ha!

No one is buying your crap, either.

@tjandmia: That wasn't what he was doing at all, c'mon man calm down. Talking like that isn't helping your case. Try to be more reasonable.

@RedEyedMonster8: The FBI investigation into various members of the administration is, I trust, legit. I don't trust Congressional investigations as far as I can throw them.

Stating the sworn testimony of the FBI, CIA, NSA, HLS (among data that confirms) is using emotions. Lols.

Calm yourself, this is not a laughing matter.

You are dismissing this because we can't show you evidence, but that's not our job. This is a classified investigation, so think about what you're saying: you are writing this investigation off because no evidence has been provided when it is the investigation itself (that's still happening and not privy to the public) that's going to provide the evidence. How do you and others not see that as backwards and/or premature in rationalization of your dismissal? And you're right, someone's nature may not be used to prove someone's guilty in the technical letter of the law, but it sure as hell pulls them into the realm of suspicion.

You and kod seem to work on the "this is a total partisan issue and witch hunt therefor everything about it is automatically illegitimate before we've given it a chance to finish" principle. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't disregard the process of determining that before it's even been ascertained and jumping to a judgement it's faulty. It waits until all the evidence has been gathered and scrutinized and then makes that determination. You seem unwilling to allow for that, and I believe that is all that I and others who want to see this completed are desiring.

@Jacanuk: right where I linked the video to begin at (1:10).

Then you cant expect us to take your or anyone else's word for it.

The issue me and KOD have with this is primarily due to how much attention it gets. The US is being turned into a dictatorship and both the Democrats and the media are more focused with this than reporting and stopping Trump from making the country any worse.

@Maroxad said: "The general consensus of the IC and congress means little if they cant prove their assertions."

In your opinion. Currently it means quite a lot to most of Washington and actual defense/intelligence decisions. So basically, it matters a lot in real life. Just not in internet debates, even though more than sufficient evidence was given in the leaks, imo (I guess we can argue that all day, but it doesn't change whats actually happening).

No, the process of proof is not an opinion.

Unless you've only been paying attention to our nation for three seconds, you'd realize that this is kind of the problem and you'd realize the lengths gone to in order to push these narratives when they are not true.

Keep that head in the sand.....

Go away liar.

I was done with you when you said "My stance in this thread which you disagree with is that we need to investigate this matter." Which is something you created entirely out of thin air and something i did not even come remotely close to saying or suggesting.

No you're the liar. You have argued with me repeatedly when I said we need to investigate this. Anyone with sense can read the exchange and see what you said.

Find me one single time where i said we should not investigate this or where i argued with you about the need to investigate. This thread, another thread, it does not matter, just show me where i said this. Hell, you can even show me where i did not make it utterly clear that my concern was not with the investigation taking place, but the narrative being created by our media. partisan people like yourself and the presumption of truth before anything has been demonstrated.

Maybe hiring you shows why our intelligence is so bad huh? You clearly have issues with reading and comprehending basic English. But show me, show me where i said we should not be investigating this... please. I need to see this.

Thinking that this gets too much coverage != Thinking this should not be investigated.

It may be a bit too much nuance for some I guess.

Never said it wasn't. You're changing the quote chain's topic. This was not about the merit of proof, it was how meaningful the consensus is. And facts show it has been tremendously meaningful - unless you think the actions of every Intelligence agency and most politicians is meaningless (lol).

He stated the consensus of the IC means little if there is no proof. This objectively is not true for the Russia situation. The consensu has already meant quite a lot Washington, and in shaping the actions of every SINGLE defense/intel agencies as they have long ago moved past debating if it happened (That's pretty god damn meaningful lmao). Apparently whatever classified info they have (which described by NSA leaks is pure evidence) was enough for them to stop this debate which now only persists on blatantly partisan discussion on lololol internet forums (not the most meaningful). When WA doesn't debate it anymore, the consensus meant a lot. Remember, real life actions > arm-chair politician debates on the interwebs.

I did not address the rest of your post due to its conspiratorial nature, with no citation.

Yahhhhh.... I was hoping you meant that the way i responded to you but i should have known better. But im not changing anything, im simply minimizing the amount in the post by isolating what im specifically responding to. But, consensus =/= proof. This is day 1 stuff and quite frankly i dont know why you or the other guy have such a hard time understanding that. If consensus was proof than every abrahamic religion would have been fact at different times throughout the worlds history, flat earth would have been a real thing, shit would heal wounds, etc.

I like how you call me a conspiracy theorist on one hand, then ponder if i think these agencies are doing something meaningless.

No man, that's the point, that they are not meaningless. They are very intentional and rationalized through a government that spends most of our money on military and oil in some form or another.

You know that other thread where you asked someone to cite operation mockingbird? And they simply said that its been declassified by our CIA? Well, that was one of the more known operations, along with the one i mentioned "Northwoods". And I feel as if you would take a bit and find all the stuff our CIA has declassified (there are plenty of reliable sites that compile them), you'd have a better understanding of why myself and others are demanding actual evidence and not saying that their word is good enough.

If they had "pure evidence", they would not use terms like "maybe" and "possibly" in the summary. They would be talking about what they can factually demonstrate. As for the NSA leak, im proud of her, i like leaks, we should know what our government is doing and she should be a free woman. But lets face facts... shes kind of stupid. She thought a summary of evidence was evidence itself. Of course anyone who has passed a fifth grade science class or even a debate or economics class, knows this is not true.

And stop calling people partisan. At least myself and Maro (64DD, go for it, he seems pretty far right) as we have made it as clear as day that we are not at all represented politically in the USA. Marxism, or at the very least, socialist democracy and giving the means of production to the people, is not at all represented in America. That is my political partisanship.

A page or two ago i provided you a peer reviewed Stanford study that has also been done by Princeton and i believe Cambridge, that demonstrated everything i spoke of in that previous post and the second part of this post you simply want to call conspiratorial. Don't blame me because you failed at clicking and reading.

http://www.businessinsider.com/major-study-finds-that-the-us-is-an-oligarchy-2014-4

Cambridge study = https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B

Princeton study = https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

So either political science as a whole is now one big conspiracy or you don't know what you're talking about... huuummmm....

Political Science on a whole isn't a conspiracy, it's how you're trying to use. Like a baby trying to jam a star shape into a circle. Seeing connections were there aren't any. I need proof that this is what they are doing with the Russian interference issue. Nothing in those studies suggests this. Not one shred of data. Most of them do not even mention the major agencies we are discussing......(talk about reaching on your part).

You did not link any citation or proof showing that the 17 intelligence agencies are pushing this Russian consensus due to alternate or disingenuous reasons.

Did Comey lie under oath about this? All other directors too? You're using established studies, which barely mention what we are discussing, to make up conspiracy theories. Maybe n64DD will eat it up, but not many others. The entire intelligence community has moved on. To them, and most of WA, it happened. It's done. This is almost childish at this point.

You know that other thread where you asked someone to cite operation mockingbird?

I should have made my question more clear. I was asking for citation of it occurring now with this Russian handling. I knew what operation mockingbird was......

Basically what's going on here as well.

@kod: You're not fooling anyone.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never expected anyone to take my word for it, only for them not to dismiss something before it's even to be completed.

And if we're speaking of honesty as you've brought up numerous times now, to approach this issue in skepticism predicated upon how much attention it's getting is what is dishonest. So you'd lend more merit to this if it weren't so predominantly reported on? Then that does nothing but goes to demonstrate that you are not looking at this by any objective measure like proof as you like to claim. If evidence arrived, would the amount of attention work against its credibility in your eyes?

You and kod keep attempting to shift goalposts in claiming "dictatorship", but that is not the topic at hand. If you wish to discuss what Trump is doing aside the Russia investigation, make a new thread for it. I don't believe any one of us arguing against you guys re Russia are ignorant nor unconcerned as to what Trump has done otherwise. We're simply remaining in scope of what discussion this thread encompasses.

Rumors swirling Trump's considering firing Mueller.

No one is saying it isnt impossible. However, as of now, evidence does not support the assertion that Trump is guilty. And since evidence doesn't (yet) support it. It is unreasonable to assume he did.

Sure investigate it, but that is no reason for it to hog up all the attention it does. I think that small portion of democrats are 100% correct.

The thing about the dictatorship thing is that that should take priority over this, but yet it keeps getting ignored by the media at large. Instead focusing on this scandal, which has yet to be backed by any "evidence" available to anyone but a select few. Or if not that, how about the myriad of other issues that are ignored by the media and congress?

No.

It will validate a degree of attention from our media, but not what we are seeing and not the hyperbole. If you're concerned with America than get on board being concerned with 60% of people making less than 30k a year. Get on board with a crumbling infrastructure. Get on board with children drinking lead. Get on board with a higher education situation that is financially destroying people for decades.

This goes for any topic short of nuclear or chemical bombs being launched, there is zero reason to justify this much attention to one single topic when all these other one's that they are intentionally ignoring, are the things destroying us. Are the things we really need to address.

You and kod keep attempting to shift goalposts in claiming "dictatorship", but that is not the topic at hand.

Its not a shifting goal post, you guys need to learn what that is. Its saying that we have bigger issues to be concerned with, which is a very valid criticism. A shifting goal post is exactly what we've seen with the Russia claims. It started off with Hillary claiming Russia hacked their emails, that was pretty much dismissed as false and then it moved to Russia hacking the election/Trump being involved with Russia. That is a shifting goal post, when you shift a claim because the original claim seemingly no longer has validity. Saying "we should be paying less attention to this because there are bigger, more real issues out there" is not a shifting goal post. So, lets get these terms correct before you use them.

Where is it?

Where did i say any of this?

Im going to keep asking you this until you give me a quote where i said this or you admit youre full of shit and made it up.

I didnt put any of that forward, im not using it in some specific way, im merely going by what some of the best minds in political science have demonstrated.

I was going to do a point by point response but its not really worth it as you seem to be completely void to the points made. No one is suggesting that these things are absolutely the case (this goes for Mockingbird as well), simply that we do know these things are true, we do know our government regularly (thats a keyword here) practices them and if youre not applying this, than there is a good chance you're missing a big piece of the puzzle. You claim to know these things, while also still trying to repeat the "are you saying so and so are lying" point.... well if you know these things, than why are you yourself not open to that idea? How many times do you need to see it practiced before you consider it can be applied currently? And thats another keyword "currently".... because its always "currently", its never the case "currently" but im guessing 10 years down the road if we do find something out, you will have known it all along.

All it did was blow up the dumb democrat narrative that said Trump was colluding with Russia. That whole narrative arose in the first place to shift the loss of Hillary Clinton from her terribly run campaign onto some fantasy collusion between Russia and Trump. They can't just accept that she lost and move on. Hell they've been throwing and fucking hissy fit like I've never seen. Now that narrative is shifting to obstruction of justice, which it still isn't. I'll be the first to say that Trump is a fool often and says stupid shit, but all this far lefty nonsense is just that, nonsense.

Apparently, at least two people here think you're a secret or undercover Trump shill if you recognize this very obvious series of events. Now i have no idea where you stand politically, but with myself and Maroxad we face this type of criticism because people like Zaryia and LJS9502_basic have no idea how to address points made by people who are to the left of them (either that or they are seriously clueless on how to establish facts) and don't agree with their premise or who are simply saying that we are better off waiting before we determine what is or is not fact. When confronted on these things one will go with "that's not the very specific citation i was looking for!" even when you're telling them simply reasons to be leery of the narrative and demonstrating why they should question it. And the other just makes things up as he goes along. "You said this!" "No i didnt" "Okay well... i know what you really are!".

Hear, hear.

@kod: I'm fairly Libertarian. Conservative economically, more liberal (classical liberal) as far as other things go. I'm very free speech oriented, I think legalizing drugs and other personal past times and such would help better than regulating them. Anything personal I tend to think the government should keep out of. I'm also a heavy advocate for personal responsibility, so any kind of economic redistribution stuff drives me up a wall. I think there should be a safety net for people, I mean... hell, we're the strongest, most powerful and economically viable country in the world, by a long shot (even during economic down turns), we should at least be able to help the poorest and worst off among us, but I have a problem with people becoming dependent on the government, so there needs to be limits. People who rely on the government dole their whole life do themselves a disservice, and the size and scope of the government inherently grows under such systems. I think there's a good middle ground between left and right policies, but tribalism has set in, in the last decade or so, which means truth suffers at the cost of siding with your team. It's fucking stupid. People are dumb, and if the country continues along this path it will tear itself apart and blood with flow in the streets, which most Americans at this point would not know how to deal with. Cultural appropriation, microaggressions and identity political nonsense would be the least of peoples worries at that point, since they'd have real shit to worry about. Also, I'm not a big Trump supporter. I didn't vote for the guy because I thought he lacked character, which he still seems to. However, I feel like its slowly dawning on Trump that the responsibility and difficulty of the position he won during the election is far greater than he assumed, and I just hope it humbles him and changes him for the better... but who knows. Power tends to do two things, corrupt the weak and make stronger men test themselves even further, either to the point of breaking and becoming weak, or to the point where they throw in the towel.

Ah yes the straw man argument. What points to you think anyone can address with your posts? My stance in this thread is simple......an investigate should be done into Russia interference. Period. YOU don't want that don't. There isn't anything else to this thread and it's the ONLY discussion I've had in here.

Not only do you not how to have a conversation but you are dishonest about it as well.

What straw man argument? I wasnt even talking to you, the part that did mention you was a summary of the end of our "conversation".

Do you even know what a straw man is or how to properly use it in a sentence and claim?

@ruthaford_jive

See.

I never once stated that i was against an investigation, in fact i stated multiple times that i was perfectly fine with it. I simply disliked how it came about, the narrative that has been taken by media and the people who cant think beyond what their partisanship tells them to and of course i promoted the idea of questioning the reality of the whole thing simply because of how common it is for these agencies to lie. Something both of these people are seemingly willing to acknowledge after the fact, but cant do it when its actually happening (of course all that i presented was an argument as to why its very rational to question, not to come up with an outcome, simply question what is going on). When i asked this person to show me where i said this or even came close, this was when i got the response of "You're not fooling anyone.". Because not only does this person seem to have a problem with anything questioning these things, but they are so egotistical that they think another person views them as valuable enough to spend time "fooling" them.

But in order to try to counter anything i say, he has to take this nonsense approach where he creates my response in his own head and then pretends i said it. He will do all he can to avoid what ive actually said, the fact that ive provided peer review to demonstrate why its acceptable and more than reasonable position to take, and then start fabricating whatever he can in order to justify his bullshit.

Now im sure as a thinking human being, youll recognize how programmed these guys are. How programmed one has to be to attack someone who is merely suggesting that the questioning of these things and no blind acceptance, is a good idea. Its very Orwellian to say the least.

@LJS9502_basic

If you're still reading and you decide to respond, than i need that quote that i have asked you for three times now that states where i claim i dont want an investigation. Ill even take an example where a reasonable person who passed 3rd grade English could deduce that was what i was saying.

Sessions testimony today lent a lot of credence to comeys story.

It was very telling, and a sign of a modern justice mixed with politics: was reading an article that said it well, and it essentially boiled down to the fact that you have all these people under oath refusing to tell the truth, refusing to say anything when they are asked very direct questions, and they can't actually do that. They have to tell us when asked. But for some reason we/they let them get away with it.

@kod: Yup. Its pretty funny actually.

I said it elsewhere and I think SOepedius even replied to what I said. But appearantly, Political Gamers is the only place where I can be a far left donald trump supporter/republican fanboy.

Then again, in System Wars, I have been called a Sheep (Nintendo Fanboy), a Hermit (PC fanboy) and a Lemming (Microsoft fanboy). So... yeah.

It isn't difficult to infer from all of your posts the general gist that you find this investigation illegitimate. You've indicted the credibility of the entire intelligence community and presented decades of past precedent to further the point, you've cited the scientific method yet bar any allowance for the inquiry to complete to provide such evidence, and you've argued to me you believe this is an attempt by the Left and the IC to save face for Hillary so her and the DNC can avoid embarrassment and accountability. Anyone with 3rd grade English comprehension can connect all these dots and deduce that while you are open to the possibility of Russian involvement (as you've stated), you are insinuating quite forcefully that an investigation into it isn't justified.

LJS is correct: you're not fooling anyone despite your transparent attempts to corner him by playing semantics in being unable to provide an explicit quote exemplifying such sentiment outright, of which all your posts make blatantly clear in collective implication. If this investigation ceased today, can you honestly tell any of us you'd put up the slightest protest about it and demand it reestablished? If so, on what grounding? What would lend legitimacy to you supporting an investigation that you proclaim to want, yet have not already delegitimized on various fronts? Your desire for wanting one isn't compatible with all your rationales posited so far in its dismissal, and I'm highly skeptical you'd hold much (if any) issue if the whole thing were called off tomorrow....causing you to shift your position and predicating your argument in its support that the IC's credibility and judgement can in fact be trusted, that Congress is on the right path, and this isn't some massive partisan agenda by thousands in our government to simply shield the Left and Hillary from humiliation.

So tell me....on what basis can you claim support for an investigation given your previous arguments? You've attacked every single angle that can be brought forth in advocation of wanting one, so for you to state as much is highly amusing.

@MirkoS77: Investigating it is fine. Problem is when the entire freakin' congress and national attention is on this. THAT is not justified.

You do know this isn't something minor.....right? And it's not like it's the only thing in the news either. Also not the only thing Congress is involved in either.

Should we have large scale investigations for every single claim that would imply huge consequences despite there being little evidence, if any backing them up?

Sure it isnt the only thing in the news and thing congress focuses on, but too much of hte congress focuses on it. If not that they do stupid stuff like the Covfefe act.

There isn't little evidence. There is enough intelligence to see Russia was involved in the election process. That is not minor and SHOULD be investigated. Then we have some links to Russia by some in the Trump Administration....also not minor and SHOULD be investigated. This is the heart of our democracy that is being threatened by a foreign government. It doesn't matter even if they were an ally which Russia is not. This should NEVER be ignored. This isn't as minor as Clinton lying about having sex with an intern....yet that went on a long time. It's more important frankly than most of what was investigated in recent years and yet I never saw you post a thing against those investigations.

You like to state you aren't a Trump fan boy and yet you post constantly about how this shouldn't be investigated. That seems disingenuous to me. As far as political scandals go a foreign involvement in our election process is the top of the list for warranting an investigation. An investigation is an evidence gathering apparatus to find out what happened, how it happened, and who was involved. It should definitely be investigated. Only those insistent on party politics would state otherwise.

As for not believing the evidence.....well that isn't going to change. You apparently see what you want to see. It's telling that we have seen Russia's involvement in other elections during this time and you ignore that as well. And FYI our intelligence operations are not partisan. They are staffed with people of all political ideologies. It's laughable to think it's a grand conspiracy over a lost election. And I question the intelligence of those making those allegations.