Who Meddled more Putin or Trump? The Collusion Thread visits Venezuela

Yankees executives would be very happy if the Phillies pulled out of the battle to sign the free agent Manny Machado.

Yankees executives are very happy with the 30-team accord known as Major League Baseball.

I want the Phillies to remain in the MLB. Does it logically follow that I agree “Yankees executives would be very happy” is not a reason for the Phillies to keep fighting for Machado? 

It does not.

paulsurovell said:
Here's a report on Putin's press conference yesterday.  A reminder that we have mutual interests that Putin is willing to work on with us. The worst consequence of Russiagate is that it makes this work impossible -- at our own peril.
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-warns-rising-risk-nuclear-war-says-likelihood-shouldnt-be-1266445?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_medium=Social

This is a quote from the article:"This week, Russia announced it would hold an exercise of its nuclear forces next year in light of the U.S. pulling out of the INF treaty."

Russia has been developing weapons in violation of the treaty already.  This was pointed out by the Obama Administration.

Russia is also occupying the territory of another European nation, and is engaged in military activity in other parts of that same country.

The investigation of Russian involvement in the U.S. election is not causing the threat of nuclear war.  Russia is developing weapons that violate a nuclear missile treaty, announces military exercises involving nuclear forces, continues a military occupation of another country and continues military action in that country - so when President Putin says there's a risk of nuclear war, HE'S THE ONE CAUSING THE THREAT.

Seriously, you should buy a clue about who's responsible and not validate the Russian/Trump propaganda.

Uncle Vladi won't let him.

DaveSchmidt said:
Yankees executives would be very happy if the Phillies pulled out of the battle to sign the free agent Manny Machado.
Yankees executives are very happy with the 30-team accord known as Major League Baseball.
I want the Phillies to remain in the MLB. Does it logically follow that I agree “Yankees executives would be very happy” is not a reason for the Phillies to keep fighting for Machado? 
It does not.

A problem with your analogy is that I didn't draw a conclusion, I asked a question:

(my bold):

paulsurovell said:

 Then you agree that "Putin is very happy" is not a reason to keep US troops in Syria?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
Here's a report on Putin's press conference yesterday.  A reminder that we have mutual interests that Putin is willing to work on with us. The worst consequence of Russiagate is that it makes this work impossible -- at our own peril.
https://www.newsweek.com/putin-warns-rising-risk-nuclear-war-says-likelihood-shouldnt-be-1266445?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_medium=Social

This is a quote from the article:"This week, Russia announced it would hold an exercise of its nuclear forces next year in light of the U.S. pulling out of the INF treaty."
Russia has been developing weapons in violation of the treaty already.  This was pointed out by the Obama Administration.
Russia is also occupying the territory of another European nation, and is engaged in military activity in other parts of that same country.
The investigation of Russian involvement in the U.S. election is not causing the threat of nuclear war.  Russia is developing weapons that violate a nuclear missile treaty, announces military exercises involving nuclear forces, continues a military occupation of another country and continues military action in that country - so when President Putin says there's a risk of nuclear war, HE'S THE ONE CAUSING THE THREAT.
Seriously, you should buy a clue about who's responsible and not validate the Russian/Trump propaganda.

 You are correct on one point: the "investigation" of alleged Russian involvement isn't increasing the threat of nuclear war.  It's the hysteria-driving media campaign around the investigation that's increasing the risk of war, by poisoning US-Russian relations, in particular our ability to communicate effectively during a time of crisis -- such a mistaken detection of a missile strike by the other side. And our ability to negotiate reliable systems of nuclear arms control and disarmament.

US-Russian relations were not derailed when the US invaded, occupied and conducted military action in Iraq, so there is no reason why US-Russian relations should be derailed because of Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve far less death and destruction. Crimea was annexed without a shot being fired.

As I've demonstrated on this thread, the theme of "Russian involvement in the US election" and the "Trump collusion" corollary are hoaxes on the scale of the Iraq WMD hoax, perpetrated by the same corporate media, in many cases the same individuals. No reason at all to make our relations with Russia more dangerous.  There's too much at stake.

paulsurovell said:

...
As I've demonstrated on this thread, the theme of "Russian involvement in the US election" and the "Trump collusion" corollary are hoaxes on the scale of the Iraq WMD hoax, perpetrated by the same corporate media, in many cases the same individuals. No reason at all to make our relations with Russia more dangerous.  There's too much at stake.

 You have demonstrated no such thing.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

The investigation of Russian involvement in the U.S. election is not causing the threat of nuclear war.  Russia is developing weapons that violate a nuclear missile treaty, announces military exercises involving nuclear forces, continues a military occupation of another country and continues military action in that country - so when President Putin says there's a risk of nuclear war, HE'S THE ONE CAUSING THE THREAT.
Seriously, you should buy a clue about who's responsible and not validate the Russian/Trump propaganda.

 You are correct on one point: the "investigation" of alleged Russian involvement isn't increasing the threat of nuclear war.  It's the hysteria-driving media campaign around the investigation that's increasing the risk of war, by poisoning US-Russian relations, in particular our ability to communicate effectively during a time of crisis -- such a mistaken detection of a missile strike by the other side. And our ability to negotiate reliable systems of nuclear arms control and disarmament.

Your constant prescription has been to end the investigation (as well as repeating insulting comments about Mueller and anyone in law enforcement who Trump considers to be a threat).  So your artificial distinction between the investigation and reporting on the investigation is meaningless.

Even if your stupid "hysteria-driving media campaign" claim is right, that has no effect on communication between governments about "a mistaken detection of a missile strike", or any other professional military activity like that.  Your comment is pretty insulting about the men and women who serve in that capacity.

The investigation also has nothing to do with "our ability to negotiate reliable systems of nuclear arms control and disarmament."  Trump being President is what makes that a problem.  And you didn't contradict my pointing out Putin's preexisting actions to violate the existing treaty - which predate Trump and torpedo your effort to blame the investigation.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
The investigation of Russian involvement in the U.S. election is not causing the threat of nuclear war.  Russia is developing weapons that violate a nuclear missile treaty, announces military exercises involving nuclear forces, continues a military occupation of another country and continues military action in that country - so when President Putin says there's a risk of nuclear war, HE'S THE ONE CAUSING THE THREAT.
Seriously, you should buy a clue about who's responsible and not validate the Russian/Trump propaganda.

US-Russian relations were not derailed when the US invaded, occupied and conducted military action in Iraq, so there is no reason why US-Russian relations should be derailed because of Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve far less death and destruction. Crimea was annexed without a shot being fired.

That's a pretty sad statement on your part.  Russia's invasion and occupation is NOT okey-dokey.  If you're going to excuse fomenting civil war, shooting down civilian jetliners and in general attempts to destabilize governments in Eastern Europe, all to protect Trump from being investigated, don't expect your opinion to be respected. 

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

...
As I've demonstrated on this thread, the theme of "Russian involvement in the US election" and the "Trump collusion" corollary are hoaxes on the scale of the Iraq WMD hoax, perpetrated by the same corporate media, in many cases the same individuals. No reason at all to make our relations with Russia more dangerous.  There's too much at stake.

 You have demonstrated no such thing.

In fact, the facts mostly show the exact opposite of what paulsurovell claims.

paulsurovell said:

A problem with your analogy is that I didn't draw a conclusion, I asked a question:
(my bold):

paulsurovell said:

 Then you agree that "Putin is very happy" is not a reason to keep US troops in Syria?

 On a rainy Friday morning when I’m about to go stand in line for an hour at the butcher shop to pick up a holiday roast, the punctiliousness that let us know the source of the boldface in your own statement, only for there to be no boldface, tickled me at just the right time. Thank you.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

A problem with your analogy is that I didn't draw a conclusion, I asked a question:
(my bold):

paulsurovell said:

 Then you agree that "Putin is very happy" is not a reason to keep US troops in Syria?

 On a rainy Friday morning when I’m about to go stand in line for an hour at the butcher shop to pick up a holiday roast, the punctiliousness that let us know the source of the boldface in your own statement, only for there to be no boldface, tickled me at just the right time. Thank you.

 Look more carefully (at the end of the line), it's there. Too much meat, not enough kale, not good for the eyes.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
The investigation of Russian involvement in the U.S. election is not causing the threat of nuclear war.  Russia is developing weapons that violate a nuclear missile treaty, announces military exercises involving nuclear forces, continues a military occupation of another country and continues military action in that country - so when President Putin says there's a risk of nuclear war, HE'S THE ONE CAUSING THE THREAT.
Seriously, you should buy a clue about who's responsible and not validate the Russian/Trump propaganda.

US-Russian relations were not derailed when the US invaded, occupied and conducted military action in Iraq, so there is no reason why US-Russian relations should be derailed because of Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve far less death and destruction. Crimea was annexed without a shot being fired.

That's a pretty sad statement on your part.  Russia's invasion and occupation is NOT okey-dokey.  If you're going to excuse fomenting civil war, shooting down civilian jetliners and in general attempts to destabilize governments in Eastern Europe, all to protect Trump from being investigated, don't expect your opinion to be respected. 

 I know you find it "tiresome" but we spent/will spend $4 trillion to invade and occupy a country that didn't threaten us, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, caused disabling injuries to hundreds of thousands (not to mention American casualties) -- and all the while US-Russian relations were conducted in a normal, rational fashion.

The same goes for US destabilization efforts worldwide that are well-know and ongoing

George Kennan described your position well:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

South_Mountaineer said:

drummerboy said:

paulsurovell said:

...
As I've demonstrated on this thread, the theme of "Russian involvement in the US election" and the "Trump collusion" corollary are hoaxes on the scale of the Iraq WMD hoax, perpetrated by the same corporate media, in many cases the same individuals. No reason at all to make our relations with Russia more dangerous.  There's too much at stake.

 You have demonstrated no such thing.

In fact, the facts mostly show the exact opposite of what paulsurovell claims.

I'll concede that there was a group of sleazy Russian trolls who tried to make money off social media. That's about it.

paulsurovell said:

I'll concede that there was a group of sleazy Russian trolls who tried to make money off social media. That's about it.

 How would they make money off the posts (not the ads)? 

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

I'll concede that there was a group of sleazy Russian trolls who tried to make money off social media. That's about it.

 How would they make money off the posts (not the ads)? 

Paul's explanation: 

https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump/trump-collusion-subforum?page=next&limit=2340#discussion-replies-3392603

paulsurovell said:

The same goes for US destabilization efforts worldwide that are well-know and ongoing
George Kennan described your position well:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/why-putin-crimea-strategy-west-villain

That The Guardian and/or Tariq Ali quoted Kennan as spelling it “centre” (and decided “egocentic” was preferable to his “egocentrical”) tickles me, too.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
US-Russian relations were not derailed when the US invaded, occupied and conducted military action in Iraq, so there is no reason why US-Russian relations should be derailed because of Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve far less death and destruction. Crimea was annexed without a shot being fired.

That's a pretty sad statement on your part.  Russia's invasion and occupation is NOT okey-dokey.  If you're going to excuse fomenting civil war, shooting down civilian jetliners and in general attempts to destabilize governments in Eastern Europe, all to protect Trump from being investigated, don't expect your opinion to be respected. 

 I know you find it "tiresome" but we spent/will spend $4 trillion to invade and occupy a country that didn't threaten us, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, caused disabling injuries to hundreds of thousands (not to mention American casualties) -- and all the while US-Russian relations were conducted in a normal, rational fashion.
The same goes for US destabilization efforts worldwide that are well-know and ongoing
George Kennan described your position well:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/why-putin-crimea-strategy-west-villain

Did you ask for my opinion, at the time, of the invasion of Iraq?  No, you didn't.  My opinion was that it was stupid, and too many people decided not to use common sense.  There were inspectors in Iraq, who Bush had to tell to get out because we were going to invade.  There was a "no fly zone" in the north to protect the Kurds (who we're going to screw over again to the applause of the Trump apologists).  Even if there was something going on with WMDs, there were better ways to deal with it than bombing and occupation.  So spare me the quote that doesn't apply to my thinking, from an article which is not relevant to this discussion.

If you're going to put words in my mouth, instead of "tiresome", say that I find it hypocritical and sanctimonious to excuse Putin's war on Ukraine by saying that any American has to STFU because of Bush.  

cramer said:

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

I'll concede that there was a group of sleazy Russian trolls who tried to make money off social media. That's about it.

 How would they make money off the posts (not the ads)? 

Paul's explanation: 
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/subforum/who-colluded-more-hillary-or-trump/trump-collusion-subforum?page=next&limit=2340#discussion-replies-3392603

 Aha. Thanks.

I can't speak for DaveSchmidt, but I wouldn't be surprised if he still finds it "tiresome" that your main argument technique involves telling people that they said things they didn't say.  This is from this thread in December 2017.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Saban said, "As far as I know, nothing illegal there."

If you give the accurate quote, it's not much of a point you have there. It would be misleading to claim it as anything other than an aside by someone who doesn't actually know one way or the other. 

I don't think "legal" or "illegal" matters with this. The real concern is whether Jared's the right guy to send in as some sort of mediator to the Middle East. It definitely doesn't affect whether Flynn's lying was illegal.

So you agree that there are no legal concerns about whether the Trump transition team had discussions on policy matters with Russian officials during the transition or during the campaign.

No honest reading of South_Mountaineer’s comment could come to that conclusion. I don’t know about ridski, but FWIW, this is what I find so tiresome.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

The same goes for US destabilization efforts worldwide that are well-know and ongoing
George Kennan described your position well:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/why-putin-crimea-strategy-west-villain

That The Guardian and/or Tariq Ali quoted Kennan as spelling it “centre” (and decided “egocentic” was preferable to his “egocentrical”) tickles me, too.

It's good to see that you have been able to resist (thus far) Putin's Weapon of Humor. Enjoy your laughter while you can.

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
US-Russian relations were not derailed when the US invaded, occupied and conducted military action in Iraq, so there is no reason why US-Russian relations should be derailed because of Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve far less death and destruction. Crimea was annexed without a shot being fired.

That's a pretty sad statement on your part.  Russia's invasion and occupation is NOT okey-dokey.  If you're going to excuse fomenting civil war, shooting down civilian jetliners and in general attempts to destabilize governments in Eastern Europe, all to protect Trump from being investigated, don't expect your opinion to be respected. 

 I know you find it "tiresome" but we spent/will spend $4 trillion to invade and occupy a country that didn't threaten us, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, caused disabling injuries to hundreds of thousands (not to mention American casualties) -- and all the while US-Russian relations were conducted in a normal, rational fashion.
The same goes for US destabilization efforts worldwide that are well-know and ongoing
George Kennan described your position well:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/why-putin-crimea-strategy-west-villain

Did you ask for my opinion, at the time, of the invasion of Iraq?  No, you didn't.  My opinion was that it was stupid, and too many people decided not to use common sense.  There were inspectors in Iraq, who Bush had to tell to get out because we were going to invade.  There was a "no fly zone" in the north to protect the Kurds (who we're going to screw over again to the applause of the Trump apologists).  Even if there was something going on with WMDs, there were better ways to deal with it than bombing and occupation.  So spare me the quote that doesn't apply to my thinking, from an article which is not relevant to this discussion.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, instead of "tiresome", say that I find it hypocritical and sanctimonious to excuse Putin's war on Ukraine by saying that any American has to STFU because of Bush.  

 What a silly effort to obfuscate the point -- that historically (I just gave one of many instances) US-Russian relations have not been derailed by invasion, occupation, military action and overthrowing governments.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
US-Russian relations were not derailed when the US invaded, occupied and conducted military action in Iraq, so there is no reason why US-Russian relations should be derailed because of Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve far less death and destruction. Crimea was annexed without a shot being fired.

That's a pretty sad statement on your part.  Russia's invasion and occupation is NOT okey-dokey.  If you're going to excuse fomenting civil war, shooting down civilian jetliners and in general attempts to destabilize governments in Eastern Europe, all to protect Trump from being investigated, don't expect your opinion to be respected. 

 I know you find it "tiresome" but we spent/will spend $4 trillion to invade and occupy a country that didn't threaten us, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, caused disabling injuries to hundreds of thousands (not to mention American casualties) -- and all the while US-Russian relations were conducted in a normal, rational fashion.
The same goes for US destabilization efforts worldwide that are well-know and ongoing
George Kennan described your position well:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/why-putin-crimea-strategy-west-villain

Did you ask for my opinion, at the time, of the invasion of Iraq?  No, you didn't.  My opinion was that it was stupid, and too many people decided not to use common sense.  There were inspectors in Iraq, who Bush had to tell to get out because we were going to invade.  There was a "no fly zone" in the north to protect the Kurds (who we're going to screw over again to the applause of the Trump apologists).  Even if there was something going on with WMDs, there were better ways to deal with it than bombing and occupation.  So spare me the quote that doesn't apply to my thinking, from an article which is not relevant to this discussion.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, instead of "tiresome", say that I find it hypocritical and sanctimonious to excuse Putin's war on Ukraine by saying that any American has to STFU because of Bush.  

 What a silly effort to obfuscate the point -- that historically (I just gave one of many instances) US-Russian relations have not been derailed by invasion, occupation, military action and overthrowing governments.

No, I got the point - Bush invaded Iraq and Russia continued to conduct "normal" relations with us.  I just thought it was stupid and missed the point that Russia doesn't get a "pass" for invading Ukraine.  You keep pushing back against my stating that, so I guess you disagree.

South_Mountaineer said:
I can't speak for DaveSchmidt, but I wouldn't be surprised if he still finds it "tiresome" that your main argument technique involves telling people that they said things they didn't say.  This is from this thread in December 2017.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Saban said, "As far as I know, nothing illegal there."

If you give the accurate quote, it's not much of a point you have there. It would be misleading to claim it as anything other than an aside by someone who doesn't actually know one way or the other. 

I don't think "legal" or "illegal" matters with this. The real concern is whether Jared's the right guy to send in as some sort of mediator to the Middle East. It definitely doesn't affect whether Flynn's lying was illegal.

So you agree that there are no legal concerns about whether the Trump transition team had discussions on policy matters with Russian officials during the transition or during the campaign.

No honest reading of South_Mountaineer’s comment could come to that conclusion. I don’t know about ridski, but FWIW, this is what I find so tiresome.

 

 I guess the question is when you said:

I don't think "legal" or "illegal" matters with this

what did you mean by "this?"  Can you provide the preceding post(s)?

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:
US-Russian relations were not derailed when the US invaded, occupied and conducted military action in Iraq, so there is no reason why US-Russian relations should be derailed because of Russia's actions in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve far less death and destruction. Crimea was annexed without a shot being fired.

That's a pretty sad statement on your part.  Russia's invasion and occupation is NOT okey-dokey.  If you're going to excuse fomenting civil war, shooting down civilian jetliners and in general attempts to destabilize governments in Eastern Europe, all to protect Trump from being investigated, don't expect your opinion to be respected. 

 I know you find it "tiresome" but we spent/will spend $4 trillion to invade and occupy a country that didn't threaten us, killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, caused disabling injuries to hundreds of thousands (not to mention American casualties) -- and all the while US-Russian relations were conducted in a normal, rational fashion.
The same goes for US destabilization efforts worldwide that are well-know and ongoing
George Kennan described your position well:

"There is, let me assure you, nothing in nature more egocentric than embattled democracy. It soon becomes the victim of its own propaganda. It then tends to attach to its own cause an absolute value which distorts its own vision … Its enemy becomes the embodiment of all evil. Its own side is the centre of all virtue."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/28/why-putin-crimea-strategy-west-villain

Did you ask for my opinion, at the time, of the invasion of Iraq?  No, you didn't.  My opinion was that it was stupid, and too many people decided not to use common sense.  There were inspectors in Iraq, who Bush had to tell to get out because we were going to invade.  There was a "no fly zone" in the north to protect the Kurds (who we're going to screw over again to the applause of the Trump apologists).  Even if there was something going on with WMDs, there were better ways to deal with it than bombing and occupation.  So spare me the quote that doesn't apply to my thinking, from an article which is not relevant to this discussion.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, instead of "tiresome", say that I find it hypocritical and sanctimonious to excuse Putin's war on Ukraine by saying that any American has to STFU because of Bush.  

 What a silly effort to obfuscate the point -- that historically (I just gave one of many instances) US-Russian relations have not been derailed by invasion, occupation, military action and overthrowing governments.

No, I got the point - Bush invaded Iraq and Russia continued to conduct "normal" relations with us.  I just thought it was stupid and missed the point that Russia doesn't get a "pass" for invading Ukraine.  You keep pushing back against my stating that, so I guess you disagree.

South_Mountaineer said:

" . . . so I guess you disagree"

Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth.

DAAVE!

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
I can't speak for DaveSchmidt, but I wouldn't be surprised if he still finds it "tiresome" that your main argument technique involves telling people that they said things they didn't say.  This is from this thread in December 2017.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

Saban said, "As far as I know, nothing illegal there."

If you give the accurate quote, it's not much of a point you have there. It would be misleading to claim it as anything other than an aside by someone who doesn't actually know one way or the other. 

I don't think "legal" or "illegal" matters with this. The real concern is whether Jared's the right guy to send in as some sort of mediator to the Middle East. It definitely doesn't affect whether Flynn's lying was illegal.

So you agree that there are no legal concerns about whether the Trump transition team had discussions on policy matters with Russian officials during the transition or during the campaign.

No honest reading of South_Mountaineer’s comment could come to that conclusion. I don’t know about ridski, but FWIW, this is what I find so tiresome.

 

 I guess the question is when you said:

I don't think "legal" or "illegal" matters with this

what did you mean by "this?"  Can you provide the preceding post(s)?

Why don't you just re-set your whole thread, and everyone can relive the year all over again?  It's not as if you ever change your arguments, no matter what facts come to light.

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:
No, I got the point - Bush invaded Iraq and Russia continued to conduct "normal" relations with us.  I just thought it was stupid and missed the point that Russia doesn't get a "pass" for invading Ukraine.  You keep pushing back against my stating that, so I guess you disagree.

South_Mountaineer said:

" . . . so I guess you disagree"

Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth.

I said "I guess" because you "keep pushing back" against what I wrote. 

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

" . . . so I guess you disagree"

Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth.
DAAVE!

From anyone else, that would be amusing. 

South_Mountaineer said:

paulsurovell said:

South_Mountaineer said:

" . . . so I guess you disagree"

Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth.
DAAVE!

From anyone else, that would be amusing. 

Putin's Weapon of Humor claims its first victim on MOL.

Paul - I'm still awaiting your "details" on the dossier lawsuit.

paulsurovell said:

A problem with your analogy is that I didn't draw a conclusion, I asked a question:

 As I see it, the form of our destination — be it a conclusion or a question — is immaterial to the soundness of the logic we followed to get there.

(Not that my analogy was immaculate. And on a day when I had sauteed kale with dinner, no less. Tonight: collards!)

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

A problem with your analogy is that I didn't draw a conclusion, I asked a question:

 As I see it, the form of our destination — be it a conclusion or a question — is immaterial to the soundness of the logic we followed to get there.
(Not that my analogy was immaculate. And on a day when I had sauteed kale with dinner, no less. Tonight: collards!)

I called for help and you didn't come.