Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Team Trump's Complex Web of Ties With Russia


Claire.

Recommended Posts

Just an observation, questioning folks about contact or discussion of any kind with anyone Russian (in any way, shape or form) is fast becoming a loaded question fallacy. Admit to even talking to the Russian Ambassador and one is essentially admitting to criminal behavior it seems.

Loaded Question Fallacy: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

"www.cnn.com"? Well, that must be the truth, then. 

You mean to say that CNN isn't a valid enough source to report that someone is dead, and he's not dead?

How about I just not believe anything anywhere anymore and kick off my great disbelief campaign with what the govt tells me about my "safety", "security", and "need"s?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny stuff, some people still haven't come to terms with Trump's victory.

The Russians sure as hell didn't "influence" my vote.

Next time the Dems should put up a candidate that actually has a positive message and not just bashes the Republicans.

How many mores tears will be shed?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

As for Ms Pelosi, she's the one who said her denial of meeting the Russian Ambassador was "different" (wasn't me who said it that's why I put it in quotations). I say, hell no to that explanation as well.

Despite the context being quite different.  Duly noted I guess.

Quote

Just an observation, questioning folks about contact or discussion of any kind with anyone Russian (in any way, shape or form) is fast becoming a loaded question fallacy. Admit to even talking to the Russian Ambassador and one is essentially admitting to criminal behavior it seems.

I disagree.  Questioning certain folks about contact or discussion of any kind with anyone Russian is entirely normal given the circumstances.  A loaded question fallacy refers to a specific kind of question where presuppositions are built in to the question, the classic example being from your link, "have you stopped beating your wife".  I'm not aware of investigators asking, "have you stopped communicating with the Russians to influence the election" or any loaded question, but maybe you know of some I don't.  I agree though that what you are referring to is fallacious, in the case where someone is assuming just because someone talked to the Russians it was therefore criminal.  Not sure what specific one it is, a non sequitur?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, third_eye said:

Jared to be 'interviewed' by The Senate Intelligence Committee ...

~

 

 
 

Monday, 27 March 2017 | MYT 9:42 PM

  • Reuters the Star online link

~

Kushner was "doing his job".   Nothing "nefarious".    "That was part of his role and he executed it completely, as he was supposed to."   Kushner "volunteered" to be interviewed by the Senate "based on the media frenzy."  ~ Sean Spicer

Vnesheconombank says the meetings focused on global development banks' strategies and perspective sectors.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/latest-reaching-kushners-job-spicer-184156324.html

Sounds real anti-globalist to me to be pursuing strategies for global banks.  :rolleyes:   There's Trump's campaign pitch still lingering from before the election for some reason, then there's reality.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

I disagree.  Questioning certain folks about contact or discussion of any kind with anyone Russian is entirely normal given the circumstances.  A loaded question fallacy refers to a specific kind of question where presuppositions are built in to the question, the classic example being from your link, "have you stopped beating your wife".  I'm not aware of investigators asking, "have you stopped communicating with the Russians to influence the election" or any loaded question, but maybe you know of some I don't.  I agree though that what you are referring to is fallacious, in the case where someone is assuming just because someone talked to the Russians it was therefore criminal.  Not sure what specific one it is, a non sequitur?

What I meant is that even asking people about their ties to Russia or discussions with Russians is fast becoming a just like a loaded question fallacy. The assumption being that any and all ties to Russia or any and all discussions with Russians is a priori criminal in nature. There's simply no way to answer such questions without an implication of guilt. That's what I was trying to imply, sorry if I wasn't all that clear.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if there wasn't a line of dishonest comments that have been made about ties to Russia, fielding questions about Russia wouldn't carry an implication of guilt.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So did everyone just decide it was OK to skips ethics class?   

Top Intel Dem Schiff calls on Nunes to recuse himself from House Russia investigation 

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Russia investigation, called on House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes to recuse himself from the investigation in a stunning split between the two top investigators.

"After much consideration, and in light of the Chairman's admission that he met with his source of information at the White House, I believe that the Chairman should recuse himself from any further involvement in the Russia investigation, as well as any involvement in oversight of matters pertaining to any incidental collection of the Trump transition, as he was also a key member of the transition team," Schiff said in a statement Monday, following a meeting of the Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When something becomes an a priori criminal action (as in any and all contact with Russia) people are going to lie about it. People will lie about having had even the most benign contact if it carries with it such an assumption. Its not just a question of ethics here...it's a question of something being irrationally tainted.

Like I said previously, contact with Russia (the Ambassador and business people) is not something that's disallowed. Obviously the Trump team has contact with Russians...but what did this contact entail? Was it an attempt to illegally throw the election or an attempt to try and reset relations with Russia? Hopefully, the FBI will look into all of this and determine what really took place. The Democrats want only their guys to investigate and this is a very bad idea (for obvious reasons). We simply need to let the FBI do what it's supposed to do. Director Comey has already shown he will not be intimidated by either party, let him do his job.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lilly said:

When something becomes an a priori criminal action (as in any and all contact with Russia) people are going to lie about it. People will lie about having had even the most benign contact if it carries with it such an assumption. Its not just a question of ethics here...it's a question of something being irrationally tainted.

I disagree, it is a question of ethics; how is being dishonest ethical?  I can think of some very narrow circumstances where lying isn't unethical, usually in the case of lying out of consideration for someone's feelings.  Here you seem to be trying to explain why someone would have motivation to lie; all liars have that.

To be honest, I really don't know what specific instances you are talking about where talking to the Russians is being treated as a priori criminal action; do you have a quote or example of something?  Are you referring to UM posters, 'the media', people just out there somewhere?

Quote

The Democrats want only their guys to investigate and this is a very bad idea (for obvious reasons).

Where is this coming from?  The only thing I've heard is that they want Nunes to recuse himself, which is entirely logical if for no other reason then he was a member of Trump's transition team, and he just had to apologize for telling Trump and Republicans and the public that Trump communications were swept up incidentally before he notified Democrats on the committee.  Where did the Democrats say they want 'only their guys' to investigate? 

Quote

 let him do his job.

He is, and people are letting him do it.  Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep getting the vibe that you don't think people should post their thoughts, speculation, criticisms, updates, etc, on Trump topics until we have absolutely all the evidence in hand, yet you are more than willing to indulge in conjecture and speculation when it's something potentially negative about someone on 'the left'.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

To be honest, I really don't know what specific instances you are talking about where talking to the Russians is being treated as a priori criminal action; do you have a quote or example of something?

Everything the "Democratic" Party, their puppets (or puppetmasters) in the Media, and the insane Sen. John McCain have said since the election has given that impression. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Lilly said:

Director Comey has already shown he will not be intimidated by either party, let him do his job.

At this point, Director Comey looks to be completely intimidated by both parties.  The guy undoubtedly has information implicating any and all of the major players in DC, yet comes up empty-handed month after month.

Doing nothing appears to be "his job".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I keep getting the vibe that you don't think people should post their thoughts, speculation, criticisms, updates, etc, on Trump topics until we have absolutely all the evidence in hand, yet you are more than willing to indulge in conjecture and speculation when it's something potentially negative about someone on 'the left'.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. My Dad used to say this. I am very careful to separate my own personal opinion from what we know to factual. Unfortunately, others often do not do this. This includes the news media, UM posters and anyone else who feels that their personal opinion in and of itself equates to something being a fact.

As for my personal opinion regarding the actions of some on the far left (and some on the far right as well) I do support my opinion with information that is known to be factual as well as my own personal observations. I do indeed observe a climate of assumption that anyone having anything to do with Russia is currently assumed to be 'tainted'. And keep in mind this assumption is being leveled even before the FBI has made public the results of their investigation. This type of action, assumption of guilt before investigation, runs contrary to the laws of the United States (that's one of those facts I'm talking about).

As for allowing one political party to dictate who should be standing in judgement of the opposition party...never a good idea (and this one is just basic common sense).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, hacktorp said:

At this point, Director Comey looks to be completely intimidated by both parties.  The guy undoubtedly has information implicating any and all of the major players in DC, yet comes up empty-handed month after month.

Doing nothing appears to be "his job".

I disagree, looks more to me like he wants to leave no stone unturned before he goes public with the FBI's findings. Director Comey had no problem putting forth the FBI's findings on Hillary Clinton and the email issue. I suspect he'll do the same with the Trump/Russia issue.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are protesting over there because of the rampant corruption which is essentially a kleptocracy going on. The fact that there are any links (especially links they are being secretive about) to people close to Trump in any way need to be explored, unless of course we want to end up funding duck houses, as well. People close to Trump, whether they worked on his campaign, or have been appointed to various positions...we keep hearing of their ties to Russian oligarchs, Russian money-laundering banks, etc. If we like freedom and democracy, we should be concerned. 

Trump supporters should know that they aren't going to benefit from a kleptocracy here. It's designed to only benefit the leader and a handful of his cronies. They'd be picking your pockets, too. And if you said anything about it, you'd probably disappear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ChaosRose said:

People are protesting over there because of the rampant corruption which is essentially a kleptocracy going on. The fact that there are any links (especially links they are being secretive about) to people close to Trump in any way need to be explored, unless of course we want to end up funding duck houses, as well. People close to Trump, whether they worked on his campaign, or have been appointed to various positions...we keep hearing of their ties to Russian oligarchs, Russian money-laundering banks, etc. If we like freedom and democracy, we should be concerned. 

Funny how "Democratic" supporters were never worried by the corruption and nepotism that went on under the Clinton Foundation and Soros's web of influence and the relationships between the supposedly "independent" media and the ruling party and all the fundraising organisations that supported it and its candidate for President, isn't it. But that wasn't harmful to freedom and democracy, no. :no: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. My Dad used to say this. I am very careful to separate my own personal opinion from what we know to factual. Unfortunately, others often do not do this. This includes the news media, UM posters and anyone else who feels that their personal opinion in and of itself equates to something being a fact.

As for my personal opinion regarding the actions of some on the far left (and some on the far right as well) I do support my opinion with information that is known to be factual as well as my own personal observations. I do indeed observe a climate of assumption that anyone having anything to do with Russia is currently assumed to be 'tainted'. And keep in mind this assumption is being leveled even before the FBI has made public the results of their investigation. This type of action, assumption of guilt before investigation, runs contrary to the laws of the United States (that's one of those facts I'm talking about).

Fair enough, but it doesn't seem like if this is actually occurring that it would be that difficult to provide an example of what you are referring to.  Is there someone in the mainstream media for instance who is assuming that because someone had contact with Trump that it must have been criminal?  You have to admit that 'climate of assumption' is rather vague, and it makes me wonder if 'assumption' is not being confused with 'speculation', 'conjecture', 'personal opinion', or even, 'something newsworthy to report'.  That can only be resolved really by resorting to what you emphasize, 'the facts'.  I'm not trying to bust your chops or harass you, I think you make very thoughtful, measured posts and am interested in what you have to say, but I honestly don't know where you are observing these assumptions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Is there someone in the mainstream media for instance who is assuming that because someone had contact with Trump that it must have been criminal?

Are you being as obstuse as you possibly can??: That's what the Mainstream Media and the "Democratic" Party has been saying nothing but since the blinking election!! , 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lilly said:

Director Comey had no problem putting forth the FBI's findings on Hillary Clinton and the email issue

Comey put forth no such "findings" whatsoever.  He merely stated his office recommended not prosecuting Clinton "at this time".

In other words, he did nothing.  I do agree, however, that he will likely "do the same with the Trump/Russia issue" (nothing).

Edited by hacktorp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Manfred von Dreidecker said:

Are you being as obstuse as you possibly can??: That's what the Mainstream Media and the "Democratic" Party has been saying nothing but since the blinking election!! , 

Great, should be all the easier to provide an example then of what specifically you are talking about.  Not everyone in the world views everything just like people from Glyndyfrdwy do, but maybe if I knew an example I could join you and say, 'yep, that's an unfair assumption'.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Great, should be all the easier to provide an example then of what specifically you are talking about.  Not everyone in the world views everything just like people from Glyndyfrdwy do, but maybe if I knew an example I could join you and say, 'yep, that's an unfair assumption'.  

Seriously? Just turn on MSNBC or watch the Rachel Maddow show.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Comey put forth no such "findings" whatsoever.  He merely stated his office recommended not prosecuting Clinton "at this time".

In other words, he did nothing.  I do agree, however, that he will likely "do the same with the Trump/Russia issue" (nothing).

Comey's FBI statement

 

From the link:

Quote

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Lilly said:

Seriously? Just turn on MSNBC or watch the Rachel Maddow show.

I didn't realize this was going to be so difficult of a request.  You haven't just been referring to a general overall bias here.  Something appears to be up with msnbc's servers right now and I can't bring up Maddow's blog or transcripts to try and find assumptions of guilt being made.  

Maybe I'm wrong but I guess I'm getting skeptical that I would fully agree with you anyway, as you seem to have made a pretty narrow differentiation:  'assumptions of guilt' are bad, but "personal opinions supported with information that is known to be factual as well as from personal observations" are okay.  Maddow is a pundit/political commentator, and the latter phrase there is pretty much her job description.  So what's the diff, where does she cross over from that into the unacceptable 'assumption of guilt'?  

I assume you aren't talking about people discussing things along the lines of, 'if Trump had criminal contact with Russians, then x, y, and z will likely occur' as an example of the 'assumption of guilt' you are referring to; everyone including yourself I'm pretty sure does that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about this: If definitive evidence can be presented that Donald Trump colluded with the Russian government to illegally influence the 2016 election, I will have no problem calling for his impeachment. However, unless and until definitive evidence of said criminal action is presented I will not be assuming guilt.

Now that said, if I were to wake up tomorrow and have omnipotent God like powers I'd wish that Rand Paul was POTUS...but that ain't gonna happen. So, I suggest we just wait and see what the actual evidence for all this Russian stuff really is.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

I assume you aren't talking about people discussing things along the lines of, 'if Trump had criminal contact with Russians, then x, y, and z will likely occur' as an example of the 'assumption of guilt' you are referring to; everyone including yourself I'm pretty sure does that.

I've heard people say that Trump should be immediately impeached (no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts') due to his ties to Russia more times than I've heard people complain about the weather. How you haven't heard this type of commentary is beyond my ability to comprehend.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.