Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Deny, Divert, Discredit - - Trump's Scandal Playbook

Deny, divert, discredit: Trump turns to his scandal playbook once again.
Analysis: The president has a canned approach for trying to fend off bad news. This time, it's a whistleblower report.
Image: President Trump Delivers State Of The Union Address To Joint Session Of Congress
President Donald Trump walks through the doors to the House Chamber to deliver the State of the Union address in the chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives on Feb. 5, 2019.Doug Mills / Pool via Getty Images file
 

Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Let me guess....

 

Oswald acted alone


Yes, what makes you think he didn't?  Do you believe we never walked on the moon?


wow, you seriously believe this?  Now I know what I'm dealing with.

 

No worries, go back to sleep.

 


What conspiracy theory "evidence" has ever been shown to be accurate.  Do you actually believe that the bullet had to "curve"? (if needed, once you respond to that question I will give you an explanation)   I think it is time for you to wake up.


Well, for starters, he was shot and killed from the front, did you see the Zapruder film?  If you have even done a cursory exploration of anything that defies the official narrative of the JFK shooting, and still believe Oswald the lone assassin, then I could say could possibly change your mind.


I assume that you insist he was shot from the front because his head snapped back?  What conspiracy theorists are forgetting about is that the backward force caused by an exiting bullet can cause a head to snap back.  Also, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds which is consistent with him being shot from behind.

 

Most conspiracy theorists have a few things in common:

They want to believe that they are smarter than anybody else and lock on to any crack pot theory (that everybody else is missing) to prove their point.

They are under the impression that they know what is right and nobody can prove them wrong (known as narrow mindedness).

They will use some made up "fact" as proof and then dare everybody else to find them wrong.  That is not the way evidence works.

You never responded to one of my questions, Do you believe that we landed on the moon, or is that another conspiracy theory?

Honored Social Butterfly


@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Let me guess....

 

Oswald acted alone


Yes, what makes you think he didn't?  Do you believe we never walked on the moon?


wow, you seriously believe this?  Now I know what I'm dealing with.

 

No worries, go back to sleep.

 


What conspiracy theory "evidence" has ever been shown to be accurate.  Do you actually believe that the bullet had to "curve"? (if needed, once you respond to that question I will give you an explanation)   I think it is time for you to wake up.


Well, for starters, he was shot and killed from the front, did you see the Zapruder film?  If you have even done a cursory exploration of anything that defies the official narrative of the JFK shooting, and still believe Oswald the lone assassin, then I could say could possibly change your mind.


I assume that you insist he was shot from the front because his head snapped back?  What conspiracy theorists are forgetting about is that the backward force caused by an exiting bullet can cause a head to snap back.  Also, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds which is consistent with him being shot from behind.

 

Most conspiracy theorists have a few things in common:

They want to believe that they are smarter than anybody else and lock on to any crack pot theory (that everybody else is missing) to prove their point.

They are under the impression that they know what is right and nobody can prove them wrong (known as narrow mindedness).

They will use some made up "fact" as proof and then dare everybody else to find them wrong.  That is not the way evidence works.

You never responded to one of my questions, Do you believe that we landed on the moon, or is that another conspiracy theory?


Bringing up a conspiracy theory about Kennedy getting shot is an example of the title of this thread:  Distract, Divert, Discredit.   Thank you for the example.  Nothing you bring up like this can successfully take away from trump asking a foreign country to do something that would help him discredit one of his opponents in our upcoming presidential election. Trump was trying to use the Foreign Aid money as leverage to get Ukraine to investigate Biden. You don't want to admit that so you deny and distract.

 

It just ain't working ...........


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Super Contributor


@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Let me guess....

 

Oswald acted alone


Yes, what makes you think he didn't?  Do you believe we never walked on the moon?


wow, you seriously believe this?  Now I know what I'm dealing with.

 

No worries, go back to sleep.

 


What conspiracy theory "evidence" has ever been shown to be accurate.  Do you actually believe that the bullet had to "curve"? (if needed, once you respond to that question I will give you an explanation)   I think it is time for you to wake up.


Well, for starters, he was shot and killed from the front, did you see the Zapruder film?  If you have even done a cursory exploration of anything that defies the official narrative of the JFK shooting, and still believe Oswald the lone assassin, then I could say could possibly change your mind.


I assume that you insist he was shot from the front because his head snapped back?  What conspiracy theorists are forgetting about is that the backward force caused by an exiting bullet can cause a head to snap back. 

You obviously believe this, and then accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than other people (implying I'm not and probably stupid).

 

Also, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds which is consistent with him being shot from behind.

 

Most conspiracy theorists have a few things in common:

They want to believe that they are smarter than anybody else and lock on to any crack pot theory (that everybody else is missing) to prove their point.

I know I'm not smarter than anybody/everybody else.  I'm smarter than some and dumber than others.  My IQ has nothing to do with what I believe, I've looked in to various things and done research and have come to my own conclusions.  I'm not implying you're stupid because you think Oswald acted alone.  Actually, I seriously doubt you are stupid.

 

They are under the impression that they know what is right and nobody can prove them wrong (known as narrow mindedness).

And you think you are right too!  Can't it just mean we disagree?  good grief!

 

They will use some made up "fact" as proof and then dare everybody else to find them wrong.  That is not the way evidence works.

 

We all know facts can massaged and manipulated to sway people to believe what you want them to believe, it's called "propaganda".

You never responded to one of my questions, Do you believe that we landed on the moon, or is that another conspiracy theory?

What does this have to do with the JFK assassination?


 

0 Kudos
302 Views
4
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Let me guess....

 

Oswald acted alone


Yes, what makes you think he didn't?  Do you believe we never walked on the moon?


wow, you seriously believe this?  Now I know what I'm dealing with.

 

No worries, go back to sleep.

 


What conspiracy theory "evidence" has ever been shown to be accurate.  Do you actually believe that the bullet had to "curve"? (if needed, once you respond to that question I will give you an explanation)   I think it is time for you to wake up.


Well, for starters, he was shot and killed from the front, did you see the Zapruder film?  If you have even done a cursory exploration of anything that defies the official narrative of the JFK shooting, and still believe Oswald the lone assassin, then I could say could possibly change your mind.


I assume that you insist he was shot from the front because his head snapped back?  What conspiracy theorists are forgetting about is that the backward force caused by an exiting bullet can cause a head to snap back. 

You obviously believe this, and then accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than other people (implying I'm not and probably stupid).

It is a common trait, and I am not implying you are stupid.  There are many reasons why people want to grab onto conspiracy theories, i.e. a lack of self confidence.  I am not implying that is you, I am just pointing out another reason.

 

Also, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds which is consistent with him being shot from behind.

 

Most conspiracy theorists have a few things in common:

They want to believe that they are smarter than anybody else and lock on to any crack pot theory (that everybody else is missing) to prove their point.

I know I'm not smarter than anybody/everybody else.  I'm smarter than some and dumber than others.  My IQ has nothing to do with what I believe, I've looked in to various things and done research and have come to my own conclusions.  I'm not implying you're stupid because you think Oswald acted alone.  Actually, I seriously doubt you are stupid.

Then what about the JFK assassination do you think proves your point?

 

They are under the impression that they know what is right and nobody can prove them wrong (known as narrow mindedness).

And you think you are right too!  Can't it just mean we disagree?  good grief!

We can disagree about how to interpret facts, but not the facts themselves.

 

They will use some made up "fact" as proof and then dare everybody else to find them wrong.  That is not the way evidence works.

 

We all know facts can massaged and manipulated to sway people to believe what you want them to believe, it's called "propaganda".

The easiest way to make and spread propoganda is by ignoring facts.

 

 

You never responded to one of my questions, Do you believe that we landed on the moon, or is that another conspiracy theory?

What does this have to do with the JFK assassination?

OK, let me ask it another way, Is the JFK assassination the ONLY conspiracy theory that you believe in?


 


 

Super Contributor


@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Let me guess....

 

Oswald acted alone


Yes, what makes you think he didn't?  Do you believe we never walked on the moon?


wow, you seriously believe this?  Now I know what I'm dealing with.

 

No worries, go back to sleep.

 


What conspiracy theory "evidence" has ever been shown to be accurate.  Do you actually believe that the bullet had to "curve"? (if needed, once you respond to that question I will give you an explanation)   I think it is time for you to wake up.


Well, for starters, he was shot and killed from the front, did you see the Zapruder film?  If you have even done a cursory exploration of anything that defies the official narrative of the JFK shooting, and still believe Oswald the lone assassin, then I could say could possibly change your mind.


I assume that you insist he was shot from the front because his head snapped back?  What conspiracy theorists are forgetting about is that the backward force caused by an exiting bullet can cause a head to snap back. 

You obviously believe this, and then accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than other people (implying I'm not and probably stupid).

It is a common trait, and I am not implying you are stupid.  There are many reasons why people want to grab onto conspiracy theories, i.e. a lack of self confidence.  I am not implying that is you, I am just pointing out another reason.

And I am certain there could be a whole psychological profile generated on people who are resistant to conspiracy theories.  However, I have to point out an inconsistency, if we think we are superior can we also lack self confidence as you just supposed?  Hypothetical question there.  I'm sure there are many common traits amongst both groups is my point.

Also, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds which is consistent with him being shot from behind.

 

Most conspiracy theorists have a few things in common:

They want to believe that they are smarter than anybody else and lock on to any crack pot theory (that everybody else is missing) to prove their point.

I know I'm not smarter than anybody/everybody else.  I'm smarter than some and dumber than others.  My IQ has nothing to do with what I believe, I've looked in to various things and done research and have come to my own conclusions.  I'm not implying you're stupid because you think Oswald acted alone.  Actually, I seriously doubt you are stupid.

Then what about the JFK assassination do you think proves your point?

Again, JFK's head went back, I still stick by that, to me it's just common sense.  We will have to agree to disagree.  Jim Marrs wrote an incredible book explaining all the strangeness around the JFK assassination.  I'm not alone in my belief.  Doesn't make me right, I'm just not prepared to write a thesis on the whole JFK issue at this point.  I just wanted the info to get an idea of the posters general mindset.  Just like you are trying to get mine by asking me if I believe in other conspiracy theories.

They are under the impression that they know what is right and nobody can prove them wrong (known as narrow mindedness).

And you think you are right too!  Can't it just mean we disagree?  good grief!

We can disagree about how to interpret facts, but not the facts themselves.

You do know there are tons of bodies of research out there that are used to support all kinds of ideas that come to conclusions that coincidentally agree with whoever is funding the research? So in this light "facts" is a term that can be used loosely.

They will use some made up "fact" as proof and then dare everybody else to find them wrong.  That is not the way evidence works.

 

We all know facts can massaged and manipulated to sway people to believe what you want them to believe, it's called "propaganda".

The easiest way to make and spread propoganda is by ignoring facts.

Respectfully here, you're wrong.  Have you read Propaganda by Edward Bernays?  It's really not that black and white.

 

 

You never responded to one of my questions, Do you believe that we landed on the moon, or is that another conspiracy theory?

What does this have to do with the JFK assassination?

OK, let me ask it another way, Is the JFK assassination the ONLY conspiracy theory that you believe in?

 

And what difference would it make?  If I say no, then am I suddenly more credible?  If I say yes, then you just use that as evidence to support that I am a conspiracy whacko.


 


 


 

0 Kudos
344 Views
2
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

I assume that you insist he was shot from the front because his head snapped back?  What conspiracy theorists are forgetting about is that the backward force caused by an exiting bullet can cause a head to snap back. 

You obviously believe this, and then accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than other people (implying I'm not and probably stupid).

It is a common trait, and I am not implying you are stupid.  There are many reasons why people want to grab onto conspiracy theories, i.e. a lack of self confidence.  I am not implying that is you, I am just pointing out another reason.

And I am certain there could be a whole psychological profile generated on people who are resistant to conspiracy theories.  However, I have to point out an inconsistency, if we think we are superior can we also lack self confidence as you just supposed?  Hypothetical question there.  I'm sure there are many common traits amongst both groups is my point.

Actually, since someone is trying to make themselves "feel superior" it is perfectly consistent.  And, yes there are many common traits amongst and between both groups.  It is how these traits on acted that determines where people fall.  Fear and insecurity and how you choose to react to them plays a very large role.

Also, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds which is consistent with him being shot from behind.

 

Most conspiracy theorists have a few things in common:

They want to believe that they are smarter than anybody else and lock on to any crack pot theory (that everybody else is missing) to prove their point.

I know I'm not smarter than anybody/everybody else.  I'm smarter than some and dumber than others.  My IQ has nothing to do with what I believe, I've looked in to various things and done research and have come to my own conclusions.  I'm not implying you're stupid because you think Oswald acted alone.  Actually, I seriously doubt you are stupid.

Then what about the JFK assassination do you think proves your point?

Again, JFK's head went back, I still stick by that, to me it's just common sense.  We will have to agree to disagree.  Jim Marrs wrote an incredible book explaining all the strangeness around the JFK assassination.  I'm not alone in my belief.  Doesn't make me right, I'm just not prepared to write a thesis on the whole JFK issue at this point.  I just wanted the info to get an idea of the posters general mindset.  Just like you are trying to get mine by asking me if I believe in other conspiracy theories.

And that is where facts come in.  If his head simply went back, then we could both interpret that differently.  However, since we have the facts of the entry and exit wounds, we need to use these facts to interpret what happened.  Again, we are entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts.

 

They are under the impression that they know what is right and nobody can prove them wrong (known as narrow mindedness).

And you think you are right too!  Can't it just mean we disagree?  good grief!

We can disagree about how to interpret facts, but not the facts themselves.

You do know there are tons of bodies of research out there that are used to support all kinds of ideas that come to conclusions that coincidentally agree with whoever is funding the research? So in this light "facts" is a term that can be used loosely.

And that is where the peer review process comes in to "audit" the research.  As an example the anti-vaxers based their beliefs on a study that has been debunked.  In fact, for years, before it was officially found to be false, researchers were saying they could not produce the results.  Eventually, it was discovered that the Doctor faked his data.  Until "research" has gone through some peer review process, I wouldn't treat it as more than just an opinion.

 

They will use some made up "fact" as proof and then dare everybody else to find them wrong.  That is not the way evidence works.

 

We all know facts can massaged and manipulated to sway people to believe what you want them to believe, it's called "propaganda".

The easiest way to make and spread propaganda is by ignoring facts.

Respectfully here, you're wrong.  Have you read Propaganda by Edward Bernays?  It's really not that black and white. 

Except the definition of propaganda is information of a biased or misleading nature.  Again, ignoring or misrepresenting (Antivaxers) facts.

 

 

You never responded to one of my questions, Do you believe that we landed on the moon, or is that another conspiracy theory?

What does this have to do with the JFK assassination?

OK, let me ask it another way, Is the JFK assassination the ONLY conspiracy theory that you believe in?

 

And what difference would it make?  If I say no, then am I suddenly more credible?  If I say yes, then you just use that as evidence to support that I am a conspiracy whacko.

You are correct in those two assumptions.


 


 


 


 

Super Contributor


@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

I assume that you insist he was shot from the front because his head snapped back?  What conspiracy theorists are forgetting about is that the backward force caused by an exiting bullet can cause a head to snap back. 

You obviously believe this, and then accuse me of thinking I'm smarter than other people (implying I'm not and probably stupid).

It is a common trait, and I am not implying you are stupid.  There are many reasons why people want to grab onto conspiracy theories, i.e. a lack of self confidence.  I am not implying that is you, I am just pointing out another reason.

And I am certain there could be a whole psychological profile generated on people who are resistant to conspiracy theories.  However, I have to point out an inconsistency, if we think we are superior can we also lack self confidence as you just supposed?  Hypothetical question there.  I'm sure there are many common traits amongst both groups is my point.

Actually, since someone is trying to make themselves "feel superior" it is perfectly consistent.  And, yes there are many common traits amongst and between both groups.  It is how these traits on acted that determines where people fall.  Fear and insecurity and how you choose to react to them plays a very large role.

Also, exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds which is consistent with him being shot from behind.

 

Most conspiracy theorists have a few things in common:

They want to believe that they are smarter than anybody else and lock on to any crack pot theory (that everybody else is missing) to prove their point.

I know I'm not smarter than anybody/everybody else.  I'm smarter than some and dumber than others.  My IQ has nothing to do with what I believe, I've looked in to various things and done research and have come to my own conclusions.  I'm not implying you're stupid because you think Oswald acted alone.  Actually, I seriously doubt you are stupid.

Then what about the JFK assassination do you think proves your point?

Again, JFK's head went back, I still stick by that, to me it's just common sense.  We will have to agree to disagree.  Jim Marrs wrote an incredible book explaining all the strangeness around the JFK assassination.  I'm not alone in my belief.  Doesn't make me right, I'm just not prepared to write a thesis on the whole JFK issue at this point.  I just wanted the info to get an idea of the posters general mindset.  Just like you are trying to get mine by asking me if I believe in other conspiracy theories.

And that is where facts come in.  If his head simply went back, then we could both interpret that differently.  However, since we have the facts of the entry and exit wounds, we need to use these facts to interpret what happened.  Again, we are entitled to our opinions, but not our own facts.

 

They are under the impression that they know what is right and nobody can prove them wrong (known as narrow mindedness).

And you think you are right too!  Can't it just mean we disagree?  good grief!

We can disagree about how to interpret facts, but not the facts themselves.

You do know there are tons of bodies of research out there that are used to support all kinds of ideas that come to conclusions that coincidentally agree with whoever is funding the research? So in this light "facts" is a term that can be used loosely.

And that is where the peer review process comes in to "audit" the research.  As an example the anti-vaxers based their beliefs on a study that has been debunked.  In fact, for years, before it was officially found to be false, researchers were saying they could not produce the results.  Eventually, it was discovered that the Doctor faked his data.  Until "research" has gone through some peer review process, I wouldn't treat it as more than just an opinion.

 

They will use some made up "fact" as proof and then dare everybody else to find them wrong.  That is not the way evidence works.

 

We all know facts can massaged and manipulated to sway people to believe what you want them to believe, it's called "propaganda".

The easiest way to make and spread propaganda is by ignoring facts.

Respectfully here, you're wrong.  Have you read Propaganda by Edward Bernays?  It's really not that black and white. 

Except the definition of propaganda is information of a biased or misleading nature.  Again, ignoring or misrepresenting (Antivaxers) facts.

 

 

You never responded to one of my questions, Do you believe that we landed on the moon, or is that another conspiracy theory?

What does this have to do with the JFK assassination?

OK, let me ask it another way, Is the JFK assassination the ONLY conspiracy theory that you believe in?

 

And what difference would it make?  If I say no, then am I suddenly more credible?  If I say yes, then you just use that as evidence to support that I am a conspiracy whacko.

You are correct in those two assumptions.


 


 


 


 


Well, we've reached an impasse here.  I'll just have to agree to disagree with you as we are both entrenched in our views.

0 Kudos
413 Views
0
Report
Super Contributor

Why can't you all just agree that you are just as biased as you say I am?  It all boils down to what side you tend to agree with.  This is what is wrong with our country.

Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

Why can't you all just agree that you are just as biased as you say I am?  Clearly, there are political bigots on both side of the aisle.  It all boils down to what side you tend to agree with.  This is what is wrong with our country.  You are doing "X" and claiming "that's what is wrong with the country".  You could stop, become much better informed, and not contributing to, "what's wrong with the country".  Can't you?


 


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
0 Kudos
358 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

Why can't you all just agree that you are just as biased as you say I am?  It all boils down to what side you tend to agree with.  This is what is wrong with our country.


Actually what's important is who believes in facts and the truth. No one who does could possibly support trump.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

Why can't you all just agree that you are just as biased as you say I am?  It all boils down to what side you tend to agree with.  This is what is wrong with our country.


Someone pointing out that you shouldn't use conspiracy theories is not biased, it is common sense.  I think you really need to change the source of where you are getting information, or try multiple sources so you can make better informed choices.  One person claiming something is not credible.  It becomes credible when more than one source can independently corroborate it without referencing back to the original source as their "proof".

Super Contributor


@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Why can't you all just agree that you are just as biased as you say I am?  It all boils down to what side you tend to agree with.  This is what is wrong with our country.


Someone pointing out that you shouldn't use conspiracy theories is not biased, it is common sense.  I think you really need to change the source of where you are getting information, or try multiple sources so you can make better informed choices.  One person claiming something is not credible.  It becomes credible when more than one source can independently corroborate it without referencing back to the original source as their "proof".


I've done that, and yet it seems like the only sources deemed credible on this board are ones that come from someone you all agree with.

0 Kudos
357 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Why can't you all just agree that you are just as biased as you say I am?  It all boils down to what side you tend to agree with.  This is what is wrong with our country.


Someone pointing out that you shouldn't use conspiracy theories is not biased, it is common sense.  I think you really need to change the source of where you are getting information, or try multiple sources so you can make better informed choices.  One person claiming something is not credible.  It becomes credible when more than one source can independently corroborate it without referencing back to the original source as their "proof".


I've done that, and yet it seems like the only sources deemed credible on this board are ones that come from someone you all agree with.


If you want to use a source, then you should make sure that another source has independently verified it, or list it as a single source.  In this case, multiple sources have debunked this claim.  Personally, I don't know why anybody would believe Glenn Beck.  If you want to watch him for entertainment, go ahead.  For information, I don't believe a word coming out of his mouth and will use other sources.  You may as well use Alex Jones as a source, he has just as much credibility.

Super Contributor
Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

The Ukraine Scandal Explained:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nUZekJ3pfM

 

 

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-sanders-claims-dnc-ukraine-collusion-trump-russia

 


I wouldn't listen to Glenn Beck in anyone's wildest imaginations.

 

Same thing with Sarah Sanders, trump's lackey and highly paid professional liar.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

The Ukraine Scandal Explained:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nUZekJ3pfM

 

 

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-sanders-claims-dnc-ukraine-collusion-trump-russia

 


Thanks for posting this.  Good illustration with the timeline, easy to follow.

 

I think Biden is in a tailspin...

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
320 Views
1
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@jimc91 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

The Ukraine Scandal Explained:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nUZekJ3pfM

 

 

 

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-sanders-claims-dnc-ukraine-collusion-trump-russia

 


Thanks for posting this.  Good illustration with the timeline, easy to follow.

 

I think Biden is in a tailspin...

 

 


Manafort went to prison and Biden is in a tailspin?  ROFLMAO !!!!


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

The Ukraine Scandal Explained:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nUZekJ3pfM

Glenn Beck is a conspiracy nut, always has been-always will be.  Not a credible source.

 

The Democrats are the ones guilty of collusion.

Any specifics on that?

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sarah-sanders-claims-dnc-ukraine-collusion-trump-russia

From your article dated July 12, 2017:

"An unnamed DNC official told Politico that Chalupa conducted her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia independently, and that the committee did not use her findings in its own dossiers on Trump and his connections to Russia."

 

Maybe...it was Chalupa's investigative reporting that caused dt to 'very' quickly dismiss Manafort as his Campaign Chairman....and then claim he hardly knew the guy?

 

The corruption goes so far back it isn't even funny.

How far Catherine and what corruption?

Even Sara Sanders was talking about this back then why isn't this being talked about NOW?

Because Manafort is in prison?  Because Clinton never committed a crime by asking the Ukraine for a "favor"?  Because dt's impeachment is a tad more volatile?

It is true though, Ukraine and scads of other nations wanted to see American voters elect President Hillary Clinton.

But none of them went as far with their interest as Putin to actually create his very own puppet.

Super Contributor

if you didn't even watch the video Beck did then there is no point discussing it

Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

if you didn't even watch the video Beck did then there is no point discussing it


If you're really not educated enough on Beck to know that he is a conspiracy theorist who will go to any length to paint ultra-conservatism like putting lipstick on a pig then there is no point in discussing it.  If you could show some credible sources it would be different.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
Super Contributor

you don't like the message you call it a conspiracy.....oldest trick in the book.....yawn****

 

Where's the money?  Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?  Oh no, guess that would be a conspiracy, so it couldn't have happened.

0 Kudos
357 Views
17
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...

Super Contributor


@oceanedge2 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...


We've been giving and withholding "aid" to countries for decades, to tie his withholding to something as specific as getting dirt on Biden seems a little simplistic to me, but thanks for the link it was interesting.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/military-aid-ukraine-trump/599500/

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/04/trump-administration-pakistan-aid-325401

 

and here you have DT providing more support than Obama:

 

"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/11/18/us-ukraine-in-close-discussion-for-new-lethal-a...

 

 

 

0 Kudos
306 Views
1
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

@oceanedge2 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...


We've been giving and withholding "aid" to countries for decades, to tie his withholding to something as specific as getting dirt on Biden seems a little simplistic to me, but thanks for the link it was interesting.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/10/military-aid-ukraine-trump/599500/

 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/04/trump-administration-pakistan-aid-325401

 

and here you have DT providing more support than Obama:

 

"One irony is that the Trump administration was going further with its aid than the Obama administration by deciding to provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. In 2017, Trump announced his intent to provide the Javelin, and Congress approved an assistance package of 210 missiles and 37 launchers, together worth $47 million."

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2018/11/18/us-ukraine-in-close-discussion-for-new-lethal-a...

 

 

 


And, if Trump had said we are concerned about where our money went and we want a full accounting before we give you more aid, I would not have an issue with that.  The fact that he is giving more aid than the Obama administration does NOT put him in a better situation, it makes it worse.  It looks more like at an attempt at blackmail.  Asking them to investigate an American citizen should have never come up on the call.  And, now that he is caught, trying to change the reputation and actions of the Ukranian prosecutor is ridiculous, but some are actually falling for it.

Recognized Social Butterfly


@oceanedge2 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...


Does this article talk about missing Ukraine money?  This article does not back up your original claim.  Since the money is needed by the Ukraine to fight the Russians what Trump did is known as a shakedown.

Super Contributor


@sp362 wrote:

@oceanedge2 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...


Does this article talk about missing Ukraine money?  This article does not back up your original claim.  Since the money is needed by the Ukraine to fight the Russians what Trump did is known as a shakedown.


SP362:  To whom is this question directed?  This article didn't talk about the missing Ukraine money!  Exactly!  Maybe you directed this to someone other than me.  Also, Trump initially provided aid to Ukraine that was LETHAL aid, I provide the link in another post, so if he was against the Russians, who supposedly helped him get elected, would he do that?

0 Kudos
308 Views
3
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@oceanedge2 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...


Does this article talk about missing Ukraine money?  This article does not back up your original claim.  Since the money is needed by the Ukraine to fight the Russians what Trump did is known as a shakedown.


SP362:  To whom is this question directed? 

 

You DO understand that most all of your posts/comments don't indicate who or what you are addressing, don't you?


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@oceanedge2 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...


Does this article talk about missing Ukraine money?  This article does not back up your original claim.  Since the money is needed by the Ukraine to fight the Russians what Trump did is known as a shakedown.


SP362:  To whom is this question directed?  This article didn't talk about the missing Ukraine money!  Exactly!  Maybe you directed this to someone other than me.  Also, Trump initially provided aid to Ukraine that was LETHAL aid, I provide the link in another post, so if he was against the Russians, who supposedly helped him get elected, would he do that?



@SierraWinds wrote:

@sp362 wrote:

@oceanedge2 wrote:

@SierraWinds wrote:

Where's the money?

Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?

 

Here’s what you need to know about the US aid package to Ukraine that Trump delayed

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2019/09/25/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-us-aid-package-to-uk...


Does this article talk about missing Ukraine money?  This article does not back up your original claim.  Since the money is needed by the Ukraine to fight the Russians what Trump did is known as a shakedown.


SP362:  To whom is this question directed?  This article didn't talk about the missing Ukraine money!  Exactly!  Maybe you directed this to someone other than me.  Also, Trump initially provided aid to Ukraine that was LETHAL aid, I provide the link in another post, so if he was against the Russians, who supposedly helped him get elected, would he do that?


From the way the names show on this post, I assume you wrote the first question about knowing where our money went.  If you didn't write that, then this side of our discussion doesn't apply.  If oceanedge was the one who attached the article than I will go back to the original question of asking you what you meant and for some proof of recently missing money. 

Would Trump provide lethal aide?  The more aid he gives the easier it is for him to blackmail another country.  Again, why would the name of an American citizen even come up on this call?

Super Contributor

"From the way the names show on this post, I assume you wrote the first question about knowing where our money went. If you didn't write that, then this side of our discussion doesn't apply. If oceanedge was the one who attached the article than I will go back to the original question of asking you what you meant and for some proof of recently missing money.

Would Trump provide lethal aide? The more aid he gives the easier it is for him to blackmail another country. Again, why would the name of an American citizen even come up on this call?"

 

No, I didn't provide that particular link.  As to the missing money, I'll have to find a link to that.  It has to do with a huge sum of money given to someone connected to Burisma that got "lost", it was, like, 1.8 billion USD, I think.  As to Biden coming up in the call, I'll address this in another post, as I've done some more research and now I'm just plain confused.

0 Kudos
322 Views
0
Report
Recognized Social Butterfly


@SierraWinds wrote:

you don't like the message you call it a conspiracy.....oldest trick in the book.....yawn****

 

Where's the money?  Don't you think the American people would like to know what happened to all the money that got sent to Ukraine?  Oh no, guess that would be a conspiracy, so it couldn't have happened.


No, it is called a "conspiracy theory" because of the articles you have chosen to use as your proof.  Glenn Beck should never be used as a primary source.  Just because Beck writes something on a board does not make it true.  The article that you attached from 2017 would mean that we need to believe Sarah Sanders.  Chalupa has denied any of this is true, again somebody trying to make facts to fit their own narrative.  As far as wanting to know what happened to all the money that went to the Ukraine, how did Trump's phone call delve into any of that?  And yes, a conspiracy theory is usually so weak, convoluted and lacking in basic evidence that it can be thrown out as soon it is put forward.

cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png