Democrat Tracker (4 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    4,798
    Reaction score
    2,285
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    This isnt deserving of it's own thread, but we dont have a thread for general Democrat subjects.

    I almost thought this was a joke:


     
    I'll believe it when they produce the evidence.

    ----SNIP----

    I do want election laws to be enforced, but I don't believe the corrupt DNC unless they produce the evidence.
    That is 100% a valid position. However, your stated position that the democrats are up to something dirty (without any evidence to support that) is not.
     
    So...

    The democrats are corrupt because they don't want to follow election laws.
    --ALSO--
    The democrats are corrupt because they want to enforce election laws.
    The same DNC that rigged the primary so Hillary would beat Bernie is now supposedly concerned with election laws?

    They should produce the evidence because based on their recent history they shouldn't be trusted without it.
     
    What you seem to want to do is try to dunk on the DNC at any cost. Before you see if they have any evidence of wrongdoing or not. That is just nakedly partisan.
    Dunk on the DNC? Not quite. Based on them fixing the primary for Hillary against Bernie and them hiring the guy who helped pushed the discredited Steele Dossier, there is no way I believe them without evidence.

    I posted the article above that talked about Democrat lawyers flagging technical issues with 3rd party candidates without saying what the issues were. That's a big red flag that Lawfare is coming
    Once the complaint is investigated and found to be false is the time for criticism if you are actually telling the truth that you want election laws to be enforced. Doing it the way you are doing it is just pure partisanship and doesn’t support your claim that you want election laws to be enforced.
    The DNC is corrupt....don't trust and verify.
     
    That is 100% a valid position. However, your stated position that the democrats are up to something dirty (without any evidence to support that) is not.
    This article suggests they are up to something dirty especially when Marc "Steele Dossier" Elias is involved.

     
    I posted the article above that talked about Democrat lawyers flagging technical issues with 3rd party candidates without saying what the issues were.

    You aren't referring to the article contained in the tweet from Mario Nawfal are you? The article that, in its second paragraph, contains a link directly to the 11-page complaint filed with the FEC spelling out, in detail, exactly "what the issues are"?
     
    You aren't referring to the article contained in the tweet from Mario Nawfal are you? The article that, in its second paragraph, contains a link directly to the 11-page complaint filed with the FEC spelling out, in detail, exactly "what the issues are"?
    No it's not that article. It's the one Taibbi posted when he reposted that post from Mario Nawfal.

    Here the article I was talking about:

     
    No it's not that article. It's the one Taibbi posted when he reposted that post from Mario Nawfal.

    Here the article I was talking about:

    So, did you read the article that Nawfal posted? The one that has the link to the complaint filed with the FEC that spells out, in detail, what the issues are? Or, are you just going to keep demanding that they tell you what the issues are?
     
    The Steele dossier was not discredited despite your fervent hopes.
    That tells me everything I need to know about you. The Steele Dossier was definitely discredited and the only things in it that were true were previously publicly reported.


    You know that Clinton operative Charles Dolan was a source for the Steele Dossier right?

    What parts of the Steele Dossier do you think are true?
     
    So, did you read the article that Nawfal posted? The one that has the link to the complaint filed with the FEC that spells out, in detail, what the issues are? Or, are you just going to keep demanding that they tell you what the issues are?
    Yes. You are missing the point. Taibbi pointed out the article from a month ago that talked about them planning to do it without any details.



    It was clear they were already considering lawfare against the 3rd party candidates. They just didn't know what they were going to do yet. Now they know and they enlisted Mark Elias who helped push the Steele Dossier. Red flags all around.
     
    That tells me everything I need to know about you. The Steele Dossier was definitely discredited and the only things in it that were true were previously publicly reported.


    You know that Clinton operative Charles Dolan was a source for the Steele Dossier right?

    What parts of the Steele Dossier do you think are true?
    This seems increasingly desperate from you. You admit that parts of the Steele dossier were true, then you insist on calling it “discredited”, then you demand someone tell you which parts are true.

    This act is old and tired, as is your obsession with Hillary Clinton.
     
    It was clear they were already considering lawfare against the 3rd party candidates. They just didn't know what they were going to do yet. Now they know and they enlisted Mark Elias who helped push the Steele Dossier. Red flags all around.
    OR, stay with me here, they had observed some issues and felt there were laws being broken but had to gather the proof in order to file a complaint.

    I mean, that makes total sense. But you would rather believe that an entire organization is corrupt and filled with evil cartoon villain types. It’S aLl A cOnSpIrAcY!

    Taibbi tips his hand by calling them “technical” issues - he’s not an honest broker here and he tells you that every damn time he posts, yet you still buy his garbage.
     
    OR, stay with me here, they had observed some issues and felt there were laws being broken but had to gather the proof in order to file a complaint.

    I mean, that makes total sense. But you would rather believe that an entire organization is corrupt and filled with evil cartoon villain types. It’S aLl A cOnSpIrAcY!

    Taibbi tips his hand by calling them “technical” issues - he’s not an honest broker here and he tells you that every damn time he posts, yet you still buy his garbage.
    They had supposedly observed some issues, but they just decided not to tell anyone what those issues were until now? The intial article could have easily pointed out what the issues they were looking at, but it didn't.

    Why are the Democrats trying to keep their competitors off the ballot? Democrats probably should change their name to Authoritarians.

    We know the DNC is corrupt. They fixed the primary against Bernie so Hillary would win.

    How is Taibii tipping his hand when he said technical issues? You constantly claim he's not honest which isn't true while you post things from Anne Applebaum and David Frum. It's comical.
     
    This seems increasingly desperate from you. You admit that parts of the Steele dossier were true, then you insist on calling it “discredited”, then you demand someone tell you which parts are true.

    This act is old and tired, as is your obsession with Hillary Clinton.
    The only parts of the Steele Dossier that were true were things that had already been publicly reported = ZERO accurate orginal reporting.

    In fact, far from confirming the Steele material, the FBI over time seems mainly to have uncovered more and more reasons to run screaming from Steele, to wit:

    The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.”

    The Steele report reads like a pile of rumors surrounded by public information pulled off the Internet, and the Horowitz report does nothing to dispel this notion.

    At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”

    Worse (and this part of the story should be tattooed on the heads of Russia truthers), the FBI’s interviews of Steele’s sources revealed Steele embellished the most explosive parts of his report.

    The “pee tape” story, which inspired countless grave headlines (see this chin-scratching New York Times history of Russian “sexual blackmail”) and plunged the Trump presidency into crisis before it began, was, this source said, based a “conversation that [he/she] had over beers,” with the sexual allegations made… in “jest”!

    Steele in his report said the story had been “confirmed” by senior, Western hotel staff, but the actual source said it was all “rumor and speculation,” never confirmed. In fact, charged by Steele to find corroboration, the source could not: corroboration was “zero,” writes Horowitz.

    Meanwhile the Steele assertions that Russians had a kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, and that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russians, relied on a source Steele himself disparaged as an “egoist” and “boaster” who “may engage in some embellishment.” This was known to the FBI at the start, yet they naturally failed to include this info in the warrant application, one of what Horowitz described as “17 significant errors or omissions” in the FISA application.



    Long time Clinton operative Charles Dolan:

     
    Yes. You are missing the point. Taibbi pointed out the article from a month ago that talked about them planning to do it without any details.

    Yep..that makes perfect sense. I understand your point now. Because a month ago, they didn't publicly announce what they had witnessed as improper they clearly are corrupt. It's simply not possible that someone could have noticed illegal/improper activity, and said "We are going to take this to the appropriate authorities," without publicly announcing all of the specific details.

    That's why, for example, the Republicans in the House haven't accused Joe Biden of illegal activities based on closed-door testimony of witnesses before releasing the transcripts of those witnesses.
     
    That tells me everything I need to know about you. The Steele Dossier was definitely discredited and the only things in it that were true were previously publicly reported.


    You know that Clinton operative Charles Dolan was a source for the Steele Dossier right?

    What parts of the Steele Dossier do you think are true?

    Hardly a left wing media site.


    Site that operates in conjunction with the Brookings Institute, hardly a left wing media site.


    Hardly a left wing media site.


    Cato Institute hardly a left wing media site.

    For all your rambling, Taibbi’s rambling or any other RW rambling Trump was heavily connected with Russia. Mueller did not use the Steele dossier as grounds for his investigation.

    Trump is the most corrupt person to ever hold the office of president. That is saying something because there have been a lot of corrupt presidents. Add to that the complete mental unraveling of Trump over the last several months it is astounding that the Republican Party lacks the moral courage to kick him to the curb.
     
    Last edited:
    The only parts of the Steele Dossier that were true were things that had already been publicly reported = ZERO accurate orginal reporting.

    In fact, far from confirming the Steele material, the FBI over time seems mainly to have uncovered more and more reasons to run screaming from Steele, to wit:

    The “Steele dossier” was “Internet rumor,” and corroboration for the pee tape story was “zero.”

    The Steele report reads like a pile of rumors surrounded by public information pulled off the Internet, and the Horowitz report does nothing to dispel this notion.

    At the time the FBI submitted its first FISA application, Horowitz writes, it had “corroborated limited information in Steele’s election reporting, and most of that was publicly available information.” Horowitz says of Steele’s reports: “The CIA viewed it as ‘internet rumor.’”

    Worse (and this part of the story should be tattooed on the heads of Russia truthers), the FBI’s interviews of Steele’s sources revealed Steele embellished the most explosive parts of his report.

    The “pee tape” story, which inspired countless grave headlines (see this chin-scratching New York Times history of Russian “sexual blackmail”) and plunged the Trump presidency into crisis before it began, was, this source said, based a “conversation that [he/she] had over beers,” with the sexual allegations made… in “jest”!

    Steele in his report said the story had been “confirmed” by senior, Western hotel staff, but the actual source said it was all “rumor and speculation,” never confirmed. In fact, charged by Steele to find corroboration, the source could not: corroboration was “zero,” writes Horowitz.

    Meanwhile the Steele assertions that Russians had a kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, and that there was a “well-developed conspiracy of coordination” between the Trump campaign and Russians, relied on a source Steele himself disparaged as an “egoist” and “boaster” who “may engage in some embellishment.” This was known to the FBI at the start, yet they naturally failed to include this info in the warrant application, one of what Horowitz described as “17 significant errors or omissions” in the FISA application.



    Long time Clinton operative Charles Dolan:

    This is all so predictable. You’ve had this stuff explained to you multiple times and you refuse to change your mistaken beliefs. The Steele Dossier wasn’t important. It was never put forth as fact. It just doesn’t matter. You’re still wrong about it years later. You will never learn.
     
    They had supposedly observed some issues, but they just decided not to tell anyone what those issues were until now? The intial article could have easily pointed out what the issues they were looking at, but it didn't.

    Why are the Democrats trying to keep their competitors off the ballot? Democrats probably should change their name to Authoritarians.

    We know the DNC is corrupt. They fixed the primary against Bernie so Hillary would win.

    How is Taibii tipping his hand when he said technical issues? You constantly claim he's not honest which isn't true while you post things from Anne Applebaum and David Frum. It's comical.
    Would it not be irresponsible to tell a reporter what issues you suspect before you know for sure that you have the proof to back it up? It seems to be your position that the DNC is suspect because they waited until they were ready to file the complaint, instead of leaking the charges beforehand. That is also what it seems that Taibbi is saying, which is why I am comfortable saying he is being dishonest here, or maybe more accurately he is being biased. As are almost everyone I’ve ever seen you post, to be honest. Which is why you believe so many things that are just false.
     
    Would it not be irresponsible to tell a reporter what issues you suspect before you know for sure that you have the proof to back it up? It seems to be your position that the DNC is suspect because they waited until they were ready to file the complaint, instead of leaking the charges beforehand. That is also what it seems that Taibbi is saying, which is why I am comfortable saying he is being dishonest here, or maybe more accurately he is being biased. As are almost everyone I’ve ever seen you post, to be honest. Which is why you believe so many things that are just false.

    As Jonathan Swift said, "Falsehood flies, and the truth comes limping after it."
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom