• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Does Putin have something on Trump? (Answer: YES)

Deacs89 said:
Sig come on. most people on here are already dead set in their beilefs. I have seen in quite frequently where questions are asked to try and prove their own point or lead people into a trap.

Sure there is sincere questions but typically it is just confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Take what you want from the boards. There are absolutely people who are willing to have conversations about topics. There are folks who aren't. And people vacillate between those two categories.

There are only a few true idiots on this board. Most everybody else has something to contribute.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
"Rosneft, an oil corporation majority-owned by the Russian government, says it has the right to claim an ownership stake in U.S. oil company Citgo Petroleum if Citgo’s cash-strapped parent company defaults on billions in loans, according to a lien Rosneft recently filed in Delaware. If that claim succeeds, Rosneft, which is run by one of President Vladimir Putin’s closest allies, would own a sizable chunk of a company that is among the 10 largest petroleum refiners in America.

Russian ownership of a large portion of a U.S.-based oil company would be unprecedented, according to experts contacted by CBS News. Those experts also emphasize that the White House has the power to block the deal -- either on national security grounds or simply by leaving in place Obama administration sanctions against Russia."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rosneft...mp-cfius/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=35281651
Click to expand...

Thought Citgo was Venezuelan?
 
Deacs89 said:
Sig come on. most people on here are already dead set in their beilefs. Quite frequently questions are asked just to try and prove their own point or lead people into a trap.

Sure there is sincere questions but typically it is just confirmation bias.
Click to expand...

Deacs89 said:
who is we?
Click to expand...

 
PhDeac said:
They did what they could to impact the election on behalf of Trump.
Click to expand...

Ph do you think CNN, MSNBC, ABC etc etc did what they could to impact the election on behalf of Clinton?

Also fuck Russia I agree it appears they tried to influence the election by releasing real factual information taking from the DNC and Podesta.
 
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. spent a lot of time talking about Hillary's emails. Hard to say they were trying to swing things for her given how much damage they did.

More importantly, those are private sector media organizations based in the USA, not a foreign government.

Let's see if you can make a legitimate argument without asking trap questions or using sarcasm.
 
no one gets more blame for Trump than Big Media. first for not taking him seriously and then for giving him a pass for months and then for allowing Comey to throw the election
 
DeaconSig said:
Take what you want from the boards. There are absolutely people who are willing to have conversations about topics. There are folks who aren't. And people vacillate between those two categories.

There are only a few true idiots on this board. Most everybody else has something to contribute.
Click to expand...

WHY DON'T YOU GO FUCK YOURSELF
 
PhDeac said:
CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc. spent a lot of time talking about Hillary's emails. Hard to say they were trying to swing things for her given how much damage they did.

More importantly, those are private sector media organizations based in the USA, not a foreign government.

Let's see if you can make a legitimate argument without asking trap questions or using sarcasm.
Click to expand...

This the whole frustration with dems when you discuss bias in the media. Yes the discussed her emails but that is not an example of the media being neutral. Its how they cover her emails. Always with caution and always the best possible way to create the least amount of damage to her. They had to cover her emails.

Yes they are private sector media but I was comparing groups etc trying to influence an election. I think outrage should be for both. I also think both are equally as dangerous. Foreign interference is worse.

Do you think Mexico tried to influence the election ? Not illegally but do you think the tried to ?

Also how many elections have the US gov't influenced ?

My stance is the outrage and anger would be directed better if there was collusion between Trump and Russia. To date there is about the same amount of evidence to suggest Obama tapped Trumps phones.

But Collusion would be the game changer, kind of like how Donna and CNN colluded with the DNC and Hillary but yes it would be way worse.
 
So many trap questions. I'll step lightly.

It seems like media presenting news with caution and creating the least amount of damage is trying NOT to influence an election. I shouldn't be outraged about cautious media.

I'm not aware of Mexico trying to influence the election. Please provide any evidence.

The US has probably influenced many elections.

It's sad false equivalency to say there's as little evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia as there for the ridiculous Obama phone tap claim. You're just ignoring the evidence of collusion.

But let me ask you the same question others have ignored. What would be a smoking gun to you? What would you believe is enough evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia?
 
PhDeac said:
So many trap questions. I'll step lightly.

It seems like media presenting news with caution and creating the least amount of damage is trying NOT to influence an election. I shouldn't be outraged about cautious media.

I'm not aware of Mexico trying to influence the election. Please provide any evidence.

The US has probably influenced many elections.

It's sad false equivalency to say there's as little evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia as there for the ridiculous Obama phone tap claim. You're just ignoring the evidence of collusion.

But let me ask you the same question others have ignored. What would be a smoking gun to you? What would you believe is enough evidence of collusion between Trump and Russia?
Click to expand...


Can you tell me what you have so far?
 
What would you consider to be evidence?
 
This is what I mean when I say incapable of answering questions.

What would you consider to be evidence, 89? Just answer the question. It's not hard. What information from what source would cause you to say to yourself, "Wow, Trump may have colluded with the Russians?" If there's nothing that would cause you to say that, just admit it.
 
PhDeac said:
What would you consider to be evidence?
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence higher up than Clapper after March 6th that would make Clappers claims untrue?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-...mp-campaign-aides-recruited/story?id=46013305

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told ABC News he did not see anything to suggest that Russia successfully infiltrated Donald Trump's presidential campaign or recruited any of Trump’s advisers — at least as of Jan. 20, when Clapper left office.

"There was no evidence whatsoever, at the time, of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians," Clapper, a retired three-star general and career intelligence officer, told ABC News' Brian Ross in an interview Monday for "World News Tonight."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybe...racks-on-trumprussia-collusion-claim-n2294788

"What I was trying to make clear, Chris, and I appreciate a chance to restate this, is that I don't have -- and I don't know of -- any conclusive proof, one way or the other."

Do you have any evidence to refute this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top