It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All this Russia-Trump talk, lets not forget Obama open mic slip

page: 4
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

When you claim a known source of falsification versus a known source of reputable information as confirmation bias, you lose all credibility in said discussion.


You're hardly the arbiter of credibility.

Given that, you're misrepresenting what I said completely.

Your claim was that a statement is true if it is not challenged.

Can you really not understand your error?




posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yes. Which gives my comments intrinsic value.
Just because they came from me.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sillyolme


He did not have the right to tell them that trump would reverse the newly placed sanctions

And there is ZERO evidence he had a conversation about that.


Only for those who have not heard the classified conversations ... you can't say either way.

So you are confident in saying the FBI hasn't heard those conversations?


That's not what I said.

I said you haven't heard those conversations, so you can't say either way.

But the FBI would be able to say it, and they said he didn't break the law.

So there is that.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

It's hard to not see the continued obsession with Obama and Clinton as indicative of some weakness of character.

Perhaps these kind of things are a symbolic attempt to "urinate in someone's bed."

Or, maybe, there are certain folks who are just bedwetters.

Hard to say.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Can you really not understand your error?

Do you mean trusting the word of the FBI?

Yea, I guess where I could be wrong there

#HillaryforPrison



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: muSSang

Why did you ask about Russian USA relations immediately after this sentence...
My post is about trump, Obama, and putin and the silly hypocrisy of talking to Russia.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sillyolme


He did not have the right to tell them that trump would reverse the newly placed sanctions

And there is ZERO evidence he had a conversation about that.


Only for those who have not heard the classified conversations ... you can't say either way.

So you are confident in saying the FBI hasn't heard those conversations?


That's not what I said.

I said you haven't heard those conversations, so you can't say either way.

But the FBI would be able to say it, and they said he didn't break the law.

So there is that.


Again, basic civics, the FBI does not arbitrate the law nor decide guilt or innocence.

The FBI is not suggesting that Flynn be prosecuted. Also, of note, there were reports that they felt he was not "forthcoming."

Do you trust the FBI?



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Wikileaks are irrelevant. The election is over and oh once again dude. Off topic.
This thread still isn't about Hillary.

I'm out this thread is a car driven by a drunk driver...



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66



Can you really not understand your error?

Do you mean trusting the word of the FBI?

Yea, I guess where I could be wrong there

#HillaryforPrison


Wild attempt at deflection.

You and I are discussing your illogical assertion that the fact that the DNC didn't' challenge the common perceptions about emails released by Wikileaks that something nefarious is proven to be true.

Do you see the error in logic now?



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Another part of the OP that is nonsensical is the fact that Russia was a US ally in 2010. Why would the Left have an issue with Obama dealing with a US ally?

Since then Russia has dropped out of NATO's Partnership for Peace program, annexed Crimea, fomented civil war in Ukraine, threatened the US' Baltic allies, helped in the downing of MH-17, and let's not forget blaming the US for every single one of their domestic problems.

In 2010 Russia was a friend. In 2017 they are anything but. Funny how the Right has problem dealing with 2010 Russia but are ready to bend over for 2017 Russia.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Sillyolme


He did not have the right to tell them that trump would reverse the newly placed sanctions

And there is ZERO evidence he had a conversation about that.


Only for those who have not heard the classified conversations ... you can't say either way.

So you are confident in saying the FBI hasn't heard those conversations?


That's not what I said.

I said you haven't heard those conversations, so you can't say either way.

But the FBI would be able to say it, and they said he didn't break the law.

So there is that.


Again, basic civics, the FBI does not arbitrate the law nor decide guilt or innocence.

The FBI is not suggesting that Flynn be prosecuted. Also, of note, there were reports that they felt he was not "forthcoming."

Do you trust the FBI?

Well I don' have the resources the FBI does, so as it stands I have to take their determination.

They determined there was nothing criminal in the phonecall, and if you think for a second they don't have all of those convos on tape you are delusional.

So yea, I'll take it for what they say and assume nothing criminal happened. Same as I do hillary's email server.

Despite what I THINK, there isn't evidence for illegal activities.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Vector99

Wikileaks are irrelevant. The election is over and oh once again dude. Off topic.
This thread still isn't about Hillary.

I'm out this thread is a car driven by a drunk driver...

See ya! hope you return with facts and not opinions!



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66



Can you really not understand your error?

Do you mean trusting the word of the FBI?

Yea, I guess where I could be wrong there

#HillaryforPrison


Wild attempt at deflection.

You and I are discussing your illogical assertion that the fact that the DNC didn't' challenge the common perceptions about emails released by Wikileaks that something nefarious is proven to be true.

Do you see the error in logic now?

The emails released by wikileaks show exactly that though, and you resorted to their credibility to being on par of the national enquirer.

Do you see the logical deficit in your argument yet?



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66



Can you really not understand your error?

Do you mean trusting the word of the FBI?

Yea, I guess where I could be wrong there

#HillaryforPrison


Wild attempt at deflection.

You and I are discussing your illogical assertion that the fact that the DNC didn't' challenge the common perceptions about emails released by Wikileaks that something nefarious is proven to be true.

Do you see the error in logic now?

The emails released by wikileaks show exactly that though, and you resorted to their credibility to being on par of the national enquirer.

Do you see the logical deficit in your argument yet?


No, I didn't, and your dishonest representation of what I said, and what I addressed in your statement, is glaring.

You said that your vague assertions about material contained in Wikileaks were true because the Democrats didn't deny them.

I made no comment about Wikileaks authenticity. I made no overt comment about that of the National Enquirer.

Now, let's be plain: are you saying that a claim is true if no one denies it? Or not?

All of that bundled in another way: is Elvis Presley dead? Can you personally prove it?

edit on 22-2-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Again, you muddle facts with your opinions.

The FBI doesn't determine guilt or innocence.

They didn't say that nothing criminal happened.

IN fact, they have said that Mr. Flynn was not altogether 'forthcoming."

All of which is far away from the assertion on the OP.

Obama was President; Michael Flynn was not a government official.

That puts the claims of equality to the lie.

/shrug



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
No matter what Flynn or Obama did or didn't say, private citizen or person in power, it seems like - both from this thread and the media - that there's times that Russia is not to be talked to. At all. Which seems weird. Especially when business happens almost globally.

Obama was still a candidate for his next term in office, and Trump was a candidate for a term in the same office....so kind of the same...🤔
If Flynn was just a private citizen at the time, isn't it just a conversation with a Russian? Or if he was a person in a position of power, he's still not allowed to talk to Russians? When are people allowed to talk to Russia?

I think I need a coffee. This confusion of mine might be not having my coffee yet...☕️

Plus, Obama having a hot mic moment was well known everywhere- it was all over tv. I'm just starting to hear this "revelation" on main stream news too. Did people really forget?
edit on 22-2-2017 by snowspirit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit



Talking to Russian offiicals about matters of state is not the same as talking about matters of business or enterprise.

If you compare the "candidacy" of Trump and Obama then technically yes, they shared that quality. But Obama also had another quality: Presidency.

Michael Flynn had NO AUTHORITY to talk to Russian agents about state policy, and as President at the time he was also a candidate, Obama did. Not the same at all.
edit on 22-2-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: snowspirit

Regardless of being up for reelection Obama was still the acting President. It is his job to negotiate such things.

What Flynn did was potentially undermine the actions of the sitting President. Don't you find it odd that following the sanctions Russian politicians were calling for similar sanctions to be levied against the US but shortly after Flynn's call Putin announced there would be no repercussions?

That is why what Flynn did was wrong. He was not an individual elected by the people of the US. He was not working for someone that in the US government at that point. And yet he may have influenced US foreign policy without the authority to do so.



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I guess to me negotiating about policy doesn't seem like anything very sure, unless the person already has some sort of power position. Anything he said should have only been taken with a grain of salt by Russia.
It was well known that Russia hated Hillary, so even without Flynn talking to them, they were still wanting anyone but Hillary



posted on Feb, 22 2017 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: snowspirit
a reply to: Gryphon66

I guess to me negotiating about policy doesn't seem like anything very sure, unless the person already has some sort of power position. Anything he said should have only been taken with a grain of salt by Russia.
It was well known that Russia hated Hillary, so even without Flynn talking to them, they were still wanting anyone but Hillary


Well, as Xcalibur pointed out, there is the ancillary evidence that Russia decided not to try to respond to the US sanctions after talking to Flynn.

Negotiating about government policy with a foreign power as a private citizen seems really certain to me.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join