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.

 

John Solomon refutes Vindmans testimony his reporting was innaccurate

page: 11
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

Also, I know "me" looking at the evidence on the Solomon article isn't going to change anything. I can just assume it is all correct, partially correct or totally wrong and it wouldn't make a difference.


I think you are missing the entire point. It seems everyone is. If something Soloman said in this article is wrong, then it can be said it's wrong. But there needs to be a counter argument, and facts. Just saying "it's wrong because I heard Soloman is often wrong", isn't a fact, it's not even a good option. I get why Grambler is frustrated with this.

And I'm not saying I blindly believe Soloman. I am saying that before his work can be dismissed out of hand, it needs to be fact checked. and nobody seems to understand that. Maybe it's me.




posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
I think you are missing the entire point. It seems everyone is. If something Soloman said in this article is wrong, then it can be said it's wrong. But there needs to be a counter argument, and facts. Just saying "it's wrong because I heard Soloman is often wrong", isn't a fact, it's not even a good option. I get why Grambler is frustrated with this.

No, the point is that Vindman said Solomon's article was wrong about some things. We have no way of checking Vindman's info so it is a case of he said/she said.

How do you give a counter argument when you don't have the info?


And I'm not saying I blindly believe Soloman. I am saying that before his work can be dismissed out of hand, it needs to be fact checked. and nobody seems to understand that. Maybe it's me.

Even if it checks out, then what? It doesn't mean that Trump didn't break protocol.

That is why I keep calling that a strawman argument. Refuting Solomon's info, or not, has no bearing on what the dems are using to seek impeachment.



edit on 25-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

1. If there was a reason to investigate Biden, there is no case for impeachment. The Dems are saying there was no reason to investigate Biden and 2016 election interference from Ukraine, not just it wasn’t done through the proper channels

2. So because vindman didn’t give any evidence why Solomon is wrong, we should just ignore Solomon’s actual evidence?

Hahahahaha!


Ok let me make a quote

“Every true democrats ever say is wrong”

There you go. You can no longer look at any evidence democrats present because it would be unfair for you to look at it without knowing what my evidence is

Ridiculous



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Trumps whole campaign was about "breaking protocol".
He was voted to shakes things up, do things differently from the Clinton and Busch 30 year reign, and it's working!

The only thing that could be problematic is if his actions/request were nefarious in nature and that is unprovable. It had nothing to do with Biden running for president, do you really think the 3rd time is a charm for Biden?
If anyone can look at the video of Biden bragging about how he shook down the president of Ukraine with Tarmac diplomacy and not conclude that was the wrong way to go about it is beyond me.
The excuse that all of Europe agreed that the prosecutor should be fired than why not negotiate the terms of the aid and agree to the terms before you make the trip. It sounded like Joe Biden went rogue.
Investigate seems like the right thing to do, we don't want our leaders to act out a seen from the movie the Departed.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: network dude
I think you are missing the entire point. It seems everyone is. If something Soloman said in this article is wrong, then it can be said it's wrong. But there needs to be a counter argument, and facts. Just saying "it's wrong because I heard Soloman is often wrong", isn't a fact, it's not even a good option. I get why Grambler is frustrated with this.

No, the point is that Vindman said Solomon's article was wrong about some things. We have no way of checking Vindman's info so it is a case of he said/she said.

How do you give a counter argument when you don't have the info?


And I'm not saying I blindly believe Soloman. I am saying that before his work can be dismissed out of hand, it needs to be fact checked. and nobody seems to understand that. Maybe it's me.

Even if it checks out, then what? It doesn't mean that Trump didn't break protocol.

That is why I keep calling that a strawman argument. Refuting Solomon's info, or not, has no bearing on what the dems are using to seek the impeachment.




posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
1. If there was a reason to investigate Biden, there is no case for impeachment.

Not necessarily.


The Dems are saying there was no reason to investigate Biden and 2016 election interference from Ukraine, not just it wasn’t done through the proper channels

If you say so. I don't really listen to them.

ETA: Wait, are you talking about in or outside the hearings?


2. So because vindman didn’t give any evidence why Solomon is wrong, we should just ignore Solomon’s actual evidence?

Hahahahaha!

No, and I never said that.



Ok let me make a quote

“Every true democrats ever say is wrong”

There you go. You can no longer look at any evidence democrats present because it would be unfair for you to look at it without knowing what my evidence is

Ridiculous

I get that someone dismissed your source and you had a thread shut down but you need to let it go.

Maybe even try to understand what I am actually saying, but there is no need, so no pressure.
edit on 25-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You literally said because we don’t see vindmans evidence for his claims Solomon is wrong, we can’t reach a judgment

Even when Solomon does provide evidence for all of his positions

It’s cool, I see what you are doing

I wish you a great day!



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
You literally said because we don’t see vindmans evidence for his claims Solomon is wrong, we can’t reach a judgment

Literally? Than you should be able to provide a quote or a link to the post where I said that.
edit on 25-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You


No, the point is that Vindman said Solomon's article was wrong about some things. We have no way of checking Vindman's info so it is a case of he said/she said.

How do you give a counter argument when you don't have the info?



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
That isn't me saying "because we don’t see vindmans evidence for his claims Solomon is wrong"

That is me saying we can't find out who was lying, Vindman or Solomon's source.



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Vindman has no source

Solomon provides many, including official government documents, and even testimony from dem witnesses like George Kent

Your choice to not read them, and claim it’s vindmans word against Solomon’s is you being willful ignorant


That’s fine: have a great day



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
Vindman has no source

No, Vindman didn't tell us his source(s). Not the same thing.


Solomon provides many, including official government documents, and even testimony from dem witnesses like George Kent

Your choice to not read them, and claim it’s vindmans word against Solomon’s is you being willful ignorant

Yes, but the statements from someone he interviewed can't really be vetted by us.

You not accepting that you don't have all the info and just going with what someone said to Solomon is naive.

Accepting you don't have all the info and recognizing the info provided by Solomon doesn't make for an open and shut case is not being willfully ignorant. It is being honest.
edit on 25-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Ok you don’t know what all my sources are the democrats are wrong about everything

Therefore you need not look at democrat evidence because you don’t know what I could be holding back that refutes it

Unreal



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler
I never said lack of evidence refutes anything. That is another strawman you keep tackling.

You don't have all the info and placing stock in the info you have is worthless when it is incomplete. What does all the info in Solomon's article accomplish?



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I’m done with this

I look at actual evidence to make up my mind

You refuse to look at evidence because you think someone else may have evidence countering the evidence that you haven’t seen yet

No further need to derail the thread



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
I’m done with this

I look at actual evidence to make up my mind

And get mad when other people look at the same evidence and don't come to the same conclusion?


You refuse to look at evidence because you think someone else may have evidence countering the evidence that you haven’t seen yet

Who said I have not looked at it? Yet another strawman.

I looked at it. I see a bunch of circumstantial evidence with no bearing on the call to impeach Trump for circumventing protocol. Sorry if that isn't what you are seeing.


No further need to derail the thread

Derail? As if we have not been discussing the info in Solomon's article.

edit on 25-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Grambler
I’m done with this

I look at actual evidence to make up my mind

And get mad when other people look at the same evidence and don't come to the same conclusion?


You refuse to look at evidence because you think someone else may have evidence countering the evidence that you haven’t seen yet

Who said I have not looked at it? Yet another strawman.

I looked at it. I see a bunch of circumstantial evidence with no bearing on the call to impeach Trump for circumventing protocol. Sorry if that isn't what you are seeing.


No further need to derail the thread

Derail? As if we have not been discussing the info in Solomon's article.

Why are you being so hard headed when Grambler has shown you something to challenge specifically, 28 of them?


He has effectively gave your data back to you in a language many understand to be plain English. You haven't provided evidence that Solomon's data isn't true but you prattle on like you have. I recall you weren't shilling for the wrongdoers back when I started lurking on ATS. Or, am I mis-remembering that you were neutral at one time and were fair IMO? I don't think you have been fair to the facts in a while now. That DJT butt hurt is not pretty on you.



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
Why are you being so hard headed when Grambler has shown you something to challenge specifically, 28 of them?

Because I don't need to refute them to say they have no bearing on the impeachment hearings.


He has effectively gave your data back to you in a language many understand to be plain English. You haven't provided evidence that Solomon's data isn't true but you prattle on like you have. I recall you weren't shilling for the wrongdoers back when I started lurking on ATS. Or, am I mis-remembering that you were neutral at one time and were fair IMO? I don't think you have been fair to the facts in a while now. That DJT butt hurt is not pretty on you.

I have never said I have given evidence that Solomon's data isn't true. I have been prattling on about how refuting them isn't necessary to point out that even if true it doesn't mean Trump can't be held accountable for not following protocol. And I even said earlier in the thread that I think it is nonsense but that is what the dems are going with.

I also don't have any problem with Trump. I don't buy into a lot of what he says but I know it is how the game is played. I don't hate the game or the player.
edit on 25-11-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi



And yeah I am saying that Trump's appointee let Trump know about the complaint.


The same trump appointee who looked through it and said it had basis only to later actually find out it had none??



posted on Nov, 25 2019 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

The same one who tried to conceal the whistleblower disclosure from congress which he had neither the legal authority nor the discretion to overrule a determination by the IC IG. Which is the first time a Director of National Intelligence has ever sought to overrule the IC IG and conceal from Congress a whistleblower complaint. The same guy who refused to follow the statute to provide the whistleblower with required direction, through the IC IG, on how to contact the Committee directly in a secure manner. The same guy who has refused to affirm or deny that officials or lawyers at the White House have been involved in his decision to withhold the complaint from the Committee.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

So you're contending that
>Whistleblower files complaint
>Trump notified of complaint and alleged "quid pro quo"
>Trump stages text specifically saying "no quid pro quo"

Do I have that right?
edit on 27-11-2019 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
56
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join