.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
MaxYakov
-
Posts
4,725 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Posts posted by MaxYakov
-
-
26 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
Again, not a conspiracy story. It's only a conspiracy if 2 or more people are in on it. All the stories I've seen about the firing of Comey question only Trump.
It amazes me that stories you've seen don't include AG Sessions and Deputy AG Rosenstein as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy (of three)". Actually, it doesn't because they don't want to be associated with "conspiracy theories", as I've already hypothesized in previous replies on this thread.
Well then, maybe it's a conspiracy when multiple news agencies try to smear Trump with things like (from the independent UK article):
"Some commentators and newspapers, including The New York Times, have suggested the President disposed of Mr Comey in a frantic bid to prevent his own impeachment."
So these commenatators and newspapers came up with this impeachment-avoidence hypothesis independently or are they geniuses who just happen to think alike.
and this (also from the Independent UK article):
"Mr Bharara, who was removed from his high profile position by Mr Trump in March, added: “Everyone who cares about independence and the rule of law in America should be ‘troubled by the timing and reasoning’ of Comey firing. Period.”
I just threw this in because Mr Bharara does seem to have a motive to smear Trump, yes? He's not alone with motives to see bad things happen to the Donald, that's for sure and they're all operating as "individuals" in their attempts, right?
No collusions or conspiracies when it comes to getting Trump impeached, yes? /sarc
-
37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:
Putin wins. Credibility of the US political system all gone. Other than helping trump that he hoped would lift sanctions and side with Assad in Syria his other clear goal was to assert to the world and of course his own people that the US system was no better than his corrupt autocratic kleptocracy. Like I said. Putin wins and America is badly disgraced. Not exactly making America great again huh?
This thread is not about Putin or about any alleged connection between Trump and Putin. If you have some evidence that Putin thought Trump would lift sanctions or that Trump would actually do so let's see it.
Also, why don't you restore your pre-election Hillary avatar. As silly as it was it wasn't nearly as silly as your new "Trump the Clownish Smoker" edition. Somehow I get the impression you appreciate "silliness".
-
3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:
"Fake news" to trumpists simply means any actual news story that doesn't support pro-trump propaganda.
More and more people are wise to that con game.
And, of course, basing an anti-Trump story (or any story, for that matter) on an anonymous source is not a "con game". And, of course, "fake news" has to be about politics, doesn't it?
Why don't you do a little research on "fake news"?
You can start HERE [link] and HERE [link]
Additional Homework:
Wiki misinformation and disinformation series:
- Alternative facts
- Big lie
- Circular sourcing
- Deception
- Doublespeak
- Echo chamber
- Euphemistic misspeaking
- Euromyth
- False flag
- Factoid
- Fallacy
- Fake news
- Gaslighting
- Half-truth
- Hoax
- Ideological framing
- Internet manipulation
- Media manipulation
- Post-truth
- Propaganda
- Quote mining
- Scientific fabrication
- Social bot
- Spin
- Yellow journalism
-
24 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
First off, this was about liberals accusing Trump of being part of a conspiracy to obstruct justice by firing Comey. My search didn't find that.
And the vast majority of results I got using "Trump conspiracy" were either about Trump and his conspiracy theories or about defenders of Trump accusing liberals of engaging in conspiracy theories. Which is not to say that all liberals are guiltless. But no one of any prominence on the left comes close to the President himself in his predilection for accusations of conspiracy.
Oh, yeah? I guess the "Independent UK" is not of "prominence on the left"
Newsflash: Conspiracy Theories do not have to be explicitly labeled as such.
It is our job as critical thinkers to identify them. While trying to identIfy who started this Trump / Russia investigation shutdown story, (aka conspiracy theory) I ran across this in the "trump conspiracy" Google search (from four days ago):
The fact that the "Independent" sources unnamed "multiple FBI Insiders" is enough to make this a "fake news" story candidate, IMHO.
-
12 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
Wow! There's a conspiracy not to use the word "conspiracy"! That doesn't seem unlikely at all.
In your [deleted] dreams, perhaps. I decided to do a little additional research and came up with this (which I placed into my previous reply with an edit)"
"Google tip: Try Googling "trump conspiracy". I got over 32M hits and some of them look interesting. Apparently, an association of "conspiracy" and "Trump" abounds on both sides!"
And this is with only a cursory inspection of the search return titles.
Trumps's Critics Right and Left: The Conspiracy factor - National Review - Apr 14, 2017 [link]
Extract:
"The inability of the Left and the alt-right to view Trump’s decisions outside the context of conspiracy theories illustrates the derangement of political discourse."
-
14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
Once again, you should try google. I went to it and look up "Trump conspiracy to obstruct justice" I didn't get any hits on that. What I did get hits on was variations of "Trump obstructing justice." "Conspiracy" was conspicuously missing from the results.So it looks like you're making this one up or, as is more likely, getting this info from those dubious fever swamps of the internet and youtube that you apparently roam. I have no doubt that it is likely you could find a few with some serious searching, but it doesn't seem to be present in most discussions of Trump's possible obstruction of justice.
Oh, I never use Google, doncha know!
But thanks for letting me know /sarc
Google tip: Try Googling "trump conspiracy". I got over 32M hits and some of them look interesting. Apparently, an association of "conspiracy" and "Trump" abounds on both sides!
No, you probably won't find conspiracy theories or even the word conspiracy ("CT") used by the MSM (even they may accuse others of conspiracy theories) because they don't want to take a chance of being accused of fostering CTs themselves even though they've been promoting them through statements by others. Read about my hypothesis regarding CTs and the MSM in the PS: HERE [PermaLink].
-
14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
It would only be a conspiracy if the intentions of all three had been to obstruct justice. If that was Trump's intent alone, then it's not conspiracy.
No! It's got to be a conspiracy to obstruct justice [MSNBC Story Link] because more than one person was involved in Comey's firing and it definitely was to stop an alleged Russian ... something or other ... investigation, right? /sarc
Or are you not buying the leftist / Democrat narrative on this one?
PS: Actually, it looks like the MSM is avoiding using the "CT" words, probably so as to not be accused of pushing them and being accused of promoting them. The MSM often lets the nutters such as Pelosi and McCain do the mouthing of the ridiculous stuff. In the above MSNBC link it was Ted Lieu (D) Rep. CA with the stuff. No dearth of leftists out there, obviously.
-
17 minutes ago, heybruce said:
"Truthfully, I think the media have less influence on Trump than they have had on any other President in my lifetime."
You've got to be kidding! He goes on tweet storms because of things he sees on television. He won't fire Sean Spicer because he gets good ratings. He brings up the ratings of "The Apprentice" during a national prayer breakfast. He accused the UK of illegally spying on his campaign because of something he heard on Fox. He's reported to do little reading and constantly watches TV. The man is obsessed with the media and how it presents him.
Yep, we finally agree on something, assuming your claims are the truth. But even if they aren't he should be listening to Mark Levin and some other insightful folks instead of wasting his time with TV and Twitter. Maybe he should discover YouTube and the wider internet some day.
-
37 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
Actually, a conspiracy would require at least 2 people to be in on the plan. Why would Trump need anyone else? Whereas the kind of press conspiracy you hint at, would require an enormous number of people to carry it out.
You are aware that Deputy AG Rosenstein's memo/letter went to AG Sessions who wrote his own concurring recommendation, attaching Rosenstein's memo/letter and forwarding them both to the President. The President admitted in the NBC Holt interview that he was going to fire Comey anyway. So we have three high-level individual agreeing that Comey had to go? Wouldn't that be a "conspiracy" by your definition rather than just a "coincidence"?
Actually, in case you haven't noticed, there is an enormous number of people inside and outside the MSM that are capable of carrying out "fake news" (aka yellow journalism) and, AFAIC actually are doing so. Yellow journalism is and has been alive and well in the USA. A denial of this is pure naivete as a displayed ignorance of the history of MSM.
Fake News [Wiki Link] (of course, Wiki, itself, could be "fake news", huh?)
Extract from Above Wiki Link:
"Fake news is a type of yellow journalism that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via the traditional print, broadcasting news media, or via Internet-based social media.Fake news is written and published with the intent to mislead in order to gain financially or politically, often with sensationalist, exaggerated, or patently false headlines that grab attention."
-
14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
Now you're not being candid. You repeatedly questioned whether an investigation of a Trump campaign - Russian connection even existed. Once I pointed out to you that Comey testified in March front of a congressional committee that such an investigation was ongoing, you dropped that line.
And as for the truth being impossible to obtain, maybe so, but facts aren't. And you seem woefully misinformed of them. Even ones that had been plastered all over the news media, like the fact that Lynch had recused herself from making the decision on whether or not to prosecute Clinton. A decision that people in the conservative news media celebrated. Apparently you don't get your information from any major news media. So where to you get your information from? Tea leaves?
I missed most of Comey's testimonies before Congress. I watched a few minutes of them until I got nauseous.
I guess he felt obligated somehow to expose such an investigation I wonder why? He refused to answer several questions when I was watching his testimony.
I may have or may not have all the facts, but I was aware that Lynch recused herself. What! She doesn't have a Deputy Attorney General? Get real. Or did her recusal really mean that she wasn't going to have the DoJ prosecute Hillary under any circumstances?
From what I understand, there are/were other mechanisms within the DoJ in place to handle Hillary's prosecution (not that anyone every thought a presidential candidate would actually be prosecuted), from what I understand. If there aren't then it's a pretty crippled organization, huh?
Yeah, that's the ticket! Tea leaves! Even tea leaves would be better than the MSM, AFAIC.
What's your definition of a "major news media"? One that's operating in lock-step with the Democrat Party? Feel free to list your favorites.
-
14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
Do you remember how until recently, you denied that there was any evidence of an FBI investigation into the Trump campaign -Russian connection? You're deep in denial again. You are amazingly ill-informed about the Lynch decision to leave it up to Comey to decide:
Loretta Lynch to Accept F.B.I. Recommendations in Clinton Email Inquiry
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, conceding that her airport meeting with former President Bill Clinton this week had cast a shadow over the federal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s personal email account, said Friday that she would accept whatever recommendations career prosecutors and the F.B.I. director made about whether to bring charges in the case.
Ms. Lynch said she had decided this spring to defer to the recommendations of her staff and the F.B.I. because her status as a political appointee sitting in judgment on a politically charged case would raise questions of a conflict of interest. But the meeting with Mr. Clinton, she acknowledged, had deepened those questions, and she said she now felt compelled to explain publicly her reasoning to try to put the concerns to rest.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html?_r=0
And tell me something, if intent, as you believe, plays no part in decisions on whether to prosecute or not, what about General Mike Flynn? When he was in the military, he passed classified information to foreign nationals who weren't cleared to receive that information. But it was decided that because he didn't know that the law precluded him from passing that information, there was no criminal intent and that he wouldn't be disciplined.
Trump's defense secretary presided over investigation into his national security adviser for disclosing classified secrets
President-elect Donald Trump's pick for secretary of defense once presided over an investigation into the unauthorized disclosure of classified information to foreign allies that was carried out by Trump's pick for national security advisor, according to a new report from The Washington Post.
According to the Post, a 2010 investigation of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn found that he shared "classified information with various foreign military officers and/or officials in Afghanistan without proper authorization." Post sources said the secrets were about CIA operations in Afghanistan.
Flynn was never disciplined, documents released to the Post under the Freedom of Information Act showed, since it was not "done knowingly," and the investigation found the disclosures were not damaging to national security.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mattis-michael-flynn-improper-disclosures-2016-12
I believe I was referring to a "current" investigations based on Comey's alleged remarks to Trump that "he" was allegedly not being investigated.
Even if I weren't, so what? Who is supposed to know or even should know anything about a ongoing FBI investigation of anybody or anything in past or in the present or even (especially) the future? Don't kid yourself. I don't have the complete timeline of the FBI Russian / Trump campaign investigation. Why should anyone? I don't believe Comey had a press conference exposing that information to the public regarding those types of investigations. Or did he and I missed it?
I believe that the Truth is impossible to obtain from either the Democrats, the Republicans or any politician or the MSM and just about anyone else, for that matter. Certainly, one level removed from the former out and out government liars, I'm not hanging much on a lot of the posters on this thread without a citation from a credible source that can cite the original source by name.
-
38 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
Well, clearly the evidentiary value of this denial is unimpeachable. I'm sure that if it had been part of such an effort, the Trump White House would have immediately owned up to it. Just as, in his letter firing Comey, Trump gave the honest reason why Comey was fired.
I'll have to recommend that, getting to know you (Reference this Link), you should have used a /sarc on this one.
Where's the "evidentiary value" supporting what you believe to be the truth? How many people are involved in this potential "conspiracy" besides Trump, Sessions and Rosenstein?
I understand that several previous DoJ Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General have made statements condemning Comey's actions, however try to find it in the MSM. Maybe this is another "conspiracy".
It's impossible that there is a "conspiracy" of the MSM to squelch news items that don't match the desired Democrat / Left / MSM narrative, yes? /sarc
-
33 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:
The point was you tried to co-opt Rosenstein's report into being a condemnation of his decision that there wasn't sufficient grounds to indict Clinton. And that's not what Rosenstein said, In fact, he condemned Comey for his conduct at the press conference for Clinton. And conservatives were celebrating when AG Lynch recused herself from deciding whether to prosecute and handed the power over to Comey. It's only after he came to a decision that they loathed that their attitude towards Comey changed.
Huh? I didn't try to "co-opt" anything or anybody. I made the decision on my own (as I said in my reply) that Comey should not have made any recommendation about prosecution or that it was only his opinion and should have been voiced only to the DoJ. I came to this conclusion shortly after he made the press conference last year.
Shortly thereafter it became apparent that "intent" to break the various national security laws by Hillary Clinton was not a requirement for prosecution (Comey believed "intent" was necessary for prosecution). The whole thing stunk to high heaven even to someone with only half of their olfactory nerves.
Do you think that Lynch "handed the power over to Comey"? It could be that Obama or Lynch put Comey up to the press conference and his recommendation, but do you have any solid evidence of any of this? It would just be another "conspiracy theory", AFAIC. I often refer to them as"conspiracy hypotheses" so as not to give them the full weight and recognition of a formal (usually scientific) theory.
In fact, I'd have to confirm this by evaluating all of your posts, but I suspect you are susceptible to jumping on conspiracy hypotheses.
-
From the OP, a euphemism (or obfuscation) for a "conspiracy theory":
"Democrats cast the decision to fire Comey as an effort to obstruct the FBI's probe, a charge the White House has denied."
-
22 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:
Nice try. The mistakes he explicitly condemned had nothing to do with his refusal to prosecute Hillary Clinton. One of the mistakes he cited was Comey's castigation of Hillary Clinton that accompanied his decision not to press for prosecution. That was a massive violation of FBI policy.
He also condemned Comey for making the decision not to prosecute instead of leaving it to the attorney general. This was because Loretta Lynch recused herself. At the time, the right wing was celebrating giving Comey the power to decide. When his decision didn't please them, then they got indignant.
Comey's press conference on July 5, 2016 lasted less than 16 minutes. His "Finally with respect to our recommendations to the Department of Justice ..." begins around 12:40 on the below video.
Are you saying the "right wing" was celebrating up until Comey's recommendation not to prosecute is voiced and then when "his decision didn't please them, then they got indignant"?
I can say that in my case, I was simply stunned by the content of the press conference until I realized (and very shortly and on my own) that he had no business doing what he had done in that press conference.
I may or may not be right wing, but I usually can come up with what is rightful and just without being led by the nose by some pundit or political hack.
The Comey July 5, 2016 Press Conference (hopefully unedited):
-
9 minutes ago, hottrader77 said:
you dont need truck driver to reply he must have made a statement to police read it , why should he lie he would not face any charges
Maybe there's some things you may not be aware of when a farang and a Thai have an accident and the police get involved (or not). Have you had a lot of experience with accidents where a farang and a Thai were involved?
I have had only one accident on the road where a Thai (bus driver) was involved. He made an unsafe lane change with his bus and I had a minor injury, but could have been killed.
I set out eight years ago to NOT be involved in the Thai road carnage by refusing to own or operate any kind of motor vehicle and to avoid riding in several classes of motor vehicles - the primary one being motorbikes.
-
Here's what one commenter had to say about this in a "The Phucket News" article about the accident (Sorry, I could not provide the link):
"Enough is enough...I've had it with this deadly circus, and I'm sure many will be happy, but the wheels are now in motion to get the hell out of this lawless third world hell hole. To watch this murderous carnage go on and on, day after day after day and to have this worthless police force continue to do nothing, is totally unacceptable."
What was the police force supposed to do (in this case) I can't help wondering.
My eval is that the truck did not hit the motorbike. If it had, we probably would have had two fatalities and a very bent motorbike.
I don't trust the veracity of the police report, the truck driver (who has serious skin in this situation), the MB operator or the eyewitnesses. I'd trust a CCTV recording of whatever happened and there was one that was difficult to evaluate. There was a report that the MB operator swerved to the left to avoid a rapidly-stopping car and the passenger was thrown off to the right under the truck's wheels.
That seems to me to be a more believable/likely scenario. Under any scenario that I can think of, I don't see how the truck driver could be at fault providing he had stayed in his lane. Perhaps he was speeding (but even so ...). Perhaps the driver that turned himself in was not the same person as the accident truck driver.
Who knows? There's simply not enough hard info in the articles I've seen except the CCTV video and the photos of the MB, which look relatively undamaged. The police report must have been written in Thai, I should think and "Good Luck" getting the truck driver to reply on this thread (in English).
-
4 hours ago, Becker said:
Obama is exhibiting the same traits as the man-child?? You've seen the word count of pronoun references??
Right....sure....OK.
Glad you agree with me.
Narcissism seems to be the biggest common factor w/r to Trump and Obama.
I've heard several self-referencing personal pronoun (I, me) counts from dear departed Obama's speeches. What irked me the most was Obama's lack of knowledge of correct pronoun selection (albeit it's a common mistake these days even with speaking professionals who should know better). Even Trump's letter firing Comey contained a glaring personal pronoun usage error.
Here's a link to an NBC article containing Trump's letter firing Comey. Can you find the misuse of a personal pronoun in the letter? Here's an interesting quote from the letter:
"While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the Bureau."
-
7 minutes ago, iReason said:
No it is not.
You questioned the facts in my post.
I refuted your erroneous nonsense and now, you put forth a weak attempt to change the narrative of your initial post.
Cheesy.
Please explain to us why you believe the issue of Comey's popularity with the rank and file is not moot at this point.
-
8 minutes ago, iReason said:
Save your time.
You won't find it there.
It took me about 8 seconds to find it and refute your groundless gibberish.
If you're going to quote reply, I'd appreciate it if you would not edit it. Very poor form.
You omitted some of my "groundless gibberish" such as how moot the whole issue is w/r to Comey's popularity with the rank and file FBI agents.
Popularity with the rank and file, if that is indeed the case, apparently did not "trump" his unprofessional actions at a minimum.
-
4 minutes ago, iReason said:
Couldn't find it on Info Wars?
Frankly, didn't even look there. I must be slipping.
Anyway, thanks for the video snippet. Whether or not the rank-and-file liked Comey is moot.
People at high (or any level) level can go irrational and do egotistical and nonsensical things and can still treat their subordinates well, yes? Or maybe Comey is a good guy to his subordinates and began making bad professional decisions for some reason.
It's still moot at this point, isn't it?
-
1 minute ago, Andaman Al said:
Agreed, but if Comey's performance was so heinous, Trump should have fired him immediately upon taking office as part of the transition . BUT, he did not. He fired him when Comey was getting too focused on the Russia investigation. That matter is not lost on the vast majority of rational intelligent Americans. In his last interview, Trump has now implied that one of the reasons for sacking was Russia.
I imagine if Spicer is sacked or on 'gardening leave' he will be one of the most relieved men on the planet today in that he does not have to stand and defend this lying clown.
Trump has stated that Comey told him that he was not under investigation.
Do you have proof that there is even an ongoing investigation because the allegation of an ongoing FBI investigation should not be publicized, yes?
In any event, I recently heard a quote from Trump where we was encouraging such an investigation by the FBI or maybe I'm hearing things these days.
-
2 hours ago, iReason said:
Sure. And no need for "inside" information.
It's on the news.
FBI agent groups dispute Trump's rationale for Comey firing
'His support within the rank and file of the FBI is overwhelming.' (sub-title)
"In interviews with POLITICO, the heads of the two associations representing current and retired FBI agents, analysts and other personnel said that by all available measures, Comey enjoys enormous support among the 35,000 people who work for him, and the many thousands of others who have retired or left the bureau."
"The FBI Agents Association, which O’Connor said has 13,000 members, issued a statement Tuesday night urging caution in the naming of a new FBI director given the job’s importance, and praising Comey for his “service, leadership, and support for Special Agents during his tenure.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/comey-firing-fbi-trump-238247
You would have already read this on this thread if you were paying attention...
That's a good one! "It's on the news". OK, Thanks. And my standard response to such a claim by politico or any other MSM source would be the infamous - Yes, but is it true?
Comey should have acted in a professional manner last July and afterwards and kept the confidences of several of the chain-of-command he was below or working with other than the rank-and-file. He wasn't working for Obama and Lynch any more and his position certainly was not ensured.
Do you suppose their are interactions between Trump / Sessions / Rosenstein that we're not privy to that sealed Comey's fate? Did you read Deputy AG Rosenstein's memo to AG Sessions?
-
McCabe should be updating his resume as I write. Maybe Comey can find him a position (with Comey - when he finds one).
darksidedog: What is the truth in this mess? Do you think hope will save us? How much of this article misrepresentation and spin we can only wonder. McCabe should be discussing an ongoing investigation, assuming there is one. Anyway, an investigation does not make Trump a suspect of anything.
But thanks for letting me know /sarc
Trump pledges to move quickly to nominate new FBI chief
in World News
Posted · Edited by MaxYakov
Thanks for the comments and images. Where's the juicy audio?
I've asked you nicely before to not edit my posts. I'm asking you again not to do so. If you do so, you should indicate that fact with a "<----- snipped ----->" indicator or some such in the edited portion of my post so that the readers, who may desire to access my full post will recognize clearly that you have edited it.
Unless the policy has changed on this forum, this is to my knowledge the recommended and desired protocol for editing the content other contributors' posts.
Also, I consider your comments about my "aching to post something from InfoWars" both off-topic and baiting as well as referring to Trump as my "[My] boy" and "[My] Messiah". I am neither an InfoWars nor a Trump supporter (I've stated this in many of my posts). Everyone that refuses to produce the rabid, anti-Trump rhetoric is not necessarily a Trump supporter. Maybe they simply don't like rabid rhetoric.
Thank You