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.

 

Don Jr. Proved Correct About Meeting With Russian Lawyer, Memo Obtained.

page: 4
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

That's fine, but don't pretend it was biased when it doesn't please you. Right now you're arguing that it's unbiased (but you most likely believe it's biased against trump and that's why you trust it when sources that were friendly to your bias began turning on your narrative) so to claim bias when nothing was found will be really a sad indictment of your world view.


After you have built an army of strawmen and red herrings you still can't win this.

No I don't believe the media just because it fit's my views. I fully recognize even though I have beliefs that they are not supported by hard facts. That called controlling confirmation bias.

But keep going. I am sure a person with top secret clearness is babbling and making threads in ATS...of course you could be part of all the disinfo I guess.
edit on 16-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

See you don't even follow the thread of a conversation you're having, which is written out in plain text. You were calling mediabiasfactcheck, biased and acting as if there's no way to know if they're accurate or not. That's why I said your critical thinking processes were broken. Nothing to do with believing internet message board posters or the media about an investigation they know nothing about.


Have you ever seen real data used to make an argument that isn't true? Who owns foreign policy?

Could you point to where I called mediabias.Com biased?

Somebody loves the half truths themselves.
edit on 16-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Strawmenergy... I like it. I'm not trying to win anything, I'm just calling it like I see it.


No I don't believe the media just because it fit's my views. I fully recognize even though I have beliefs that they are in supported by hard facts.


Now wait a minute, how could you possibly have beliefs about the investigation that are based on hard facts when you admitted this:


I would be woefully ignorant to not believe people on the Internet or the media talking about a top secret investigation they know nothing about... Right chief


Do you have a top secret clearance and you're babbling about on ATS or did you just slaughter your own facade of neutrality?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

They were both typos. Read again.

I am not neutral. I hate Donald Trump. I was born in Philly. Hated him before the trustfund conman was president.

However I understand my bias is not the truth. I in fact am about as skeptical as David Hume.

Rand is about as close to liking a politician as I will get.
edit on 16-10-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Have you ever seen real data used to make an argument that isn't true?


Yes, you did it in your next sentence:


Who owns foreign policy?


This is a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter who owns it you can't disqualify what they say just because you don't like them. Well you can, but it doesn't make them incorrect. If george soros runs it I don't care, it's accurate. If david koch owns it, I don't care, it's accurate. (For the record, I have no clue who owns it.)
edit on 16-10-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Ok, so when the results of the investigation are made known by the investigators, you're not going to claim it was biased regardless of what they say, right? Regardless of the fact that they're overseen by republicans and investigating the republican president.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier


Have you ever seen real data used to make an argument that isn't true?


Yes, you did it in your next sentence:


Who owns foreign policy?


This is a logical fallacy, it doesn't matter who owns it you can't disqualify what they say just because you don't like them. Well you can, but it doesn't make them incorrect. If george soros runs it I don't care, it's accurate. If david koch owns it, I don't care, it's accurate. (For the record, I have no clue who owns it.)


It's a genetic falacy you are correct.

However, it does matter. The purpose of the publication is to sell more publications.

Can these memos be faked?

Can the Intel community make fake memos?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


The purpose of the publication is to sell more publications.


And what will drive traffic to a site that claims to show the bias of other websites? Credibility.


Can these memos be faked?


Anything can be faked. The question is, what would they stand to gain from faking such a memo and leaking it?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier


The purpose of the publication is to sell more publications.


And what will drive traffic to a site that claims to show the bias of other websites? Credibility.


Can these memos be faked?


Anything can be faked. The question is, what would they stand to gain from faking such a memo and leaking it?


Innocence of a bigger crime?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Ok, so when the results of the investigation are made known by the investigators, you're not going to claim it was biased regardless of what they say, right? Regardless of the fact that they're overseen by republicans and investigating the republican president.


That is correct.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier


The purpose of the publication is to sell more publications.


And what will drive traffic to a site that claims to show the bias of other websites? Credibility.


Can these memos be faked?


Anything can be faked. The question is, what would they stand to gain from faking such a memo and leaking it?


If you believe credibility drives Web traffic your lost.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

That's not at all what I was saying.
Good content drives traffic. On a website that pushes the role of arbiter, credibility = good content.



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Who faked it?



posted on Oct, 16 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

What piece of law? I have yet to find any applicable law he would've violated considering collusion only applies to anti trust laws. Do you always buy into silly buzz words or just when they fit your agenda?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 12:28 AM
link   
From what I can gather, there were legitimate points being discussed at the meeting, but Trump Jr. was interested in picking up damaging intel on Clinton on the side, although nothing came of it.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Hell, the new york times came out and admitted they carried water for weinstein. So did SNL, they said it was because he was a new yorker, yet trump is a new yorker and do you see them carrying his water? There's an echo chamber alright, but it slants hard left.
Hate to

Hate to be the one to break it to you but nothing about Clinton is 'hard left'



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: luthier

Haven't watched fox (or any news network really) in ages, but keep clinging to that dusty old line from 2002.



You must consume their media because you are repeating their talking points word for word.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   
a reply to: RickyD

Specifically, Section 30121 of Title 52 of federal campaign law.



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 04:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The memo was provided by a pro-Russian source? Then it must be authentic, right?



posted on Oct, 17 2017 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: darkbake
From what I can gather, there were legitimate points being discussed at the meeting, but Trump Jr. was interested in picking up damaging intel on Clinton on the side, although nothing came of it.


Exactly. It was a sting. The Russians set Don Junior up to look like he was conspiring with them. What matters is not what they actually discussed, it is his willingness to commit treason for political gain. The Russians are old hands at these psychological games.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join