15 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

You can disagree with the uncorroborated "investigation" but not question it's existence?

 

Is there a link citing anything more than unidentified officials, or is it just a case of It was in the WP so it must be true?

 

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein warns against anonymous sources

 

Americans should exercise caution before accepting as true any stories attributed to anonymous ‘officials,’ particularly when they do not identify the country – let alone the branch of agency of government – with which the alleged sources supposedly are affiliated. 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/06/15/deputy-attorney-general-rod-rosenstein-warns-against-anonymous-sources/102907698/

Anti Trumpers hate him so much they willingly believe anything that disparages him, and if any try to point that out they are using unverified information they are to be attacked personally as well for opposing groupthink.

9 hours ago, iReason said:

 

This is getting very interesting.

 

I believe this is the third time today (on various threads) that I've seen a Trumpeteer use a link to support his argument from,

Wait for it: the "fake" MSM

 

They are probably linking to it because it is an actual official statement from a named source, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It really matters not which media outlet they choose to quote as all will be the same, carrying the actual written statement made.

As apposed to the never ending anonymous sources, and opinion pieces, stated as if fact.

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Anti Trumpers hate him so much they willingly believe anything that disparages him, and if any try to point that out they are using unverified information they are to be attacked personally as well for opposing groupthink.

Trump lovers believe anything he says while it has been proven many time he is a liar, the dismiss any reporting as fake news and even invented "alternative truth".

Even his lawyers need lawyers now, just because of fake news? You have forgotten the civilian traitors who were trying to setup a secret information channel with the Russian secret service already?

It's only fake news when it's about DT and anonymous sources when they talk about DT.

Sent from my BLL-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try not to trip over your ego, won't you.

You keep making this personal, so why don't you personally try and keep your personal opinions about me to yourself.

Will do...just as soon as you stop posting demonstrable fallacies and nonsense and start backing your claims up with actual facts.

On 6/16/2017 at 11:22 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Leaks. Never been so many leaks before. Even from Mueller's investigation, but none to prove he colluded.

......and most of them are coming from the White House........his own people. Seems staffers understand the only way to get through to Trump is via Cable News.

Newt Gingrich Now Says the President “Technically” Can’t Even Obstruct Justice

There should be a daily column called: Things Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich Used to Think vs. Things Newt Gingrich Random American Now Thinks and Often Says Out Loud on Fox News. 

New Gingrich’s views on obstruction of justice are a wee bit divergent from when his role as the Speaker of the House was LEADING the charge against President Bill Clinton and VOTING to impeach Clinton for articles of impeachment that included, among other things, an obstruction of justice charge. "What you have lived through for 2.5 long years is the most systematic, deliberate obstruction-of-justice, cover-up, and effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in American history," Gingrich said in 1998.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/17/newt_gingrich_now_says_the_president_technically_can_t_even_obstruct_justice.html

 

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Newt Gingrich Now Says the President “Technically” Can’t Even Obstruct Justice

There should be a daily column called: Things Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich Used to Think vs. Things Newt Gingrich Random American Now Thinks and Often Says Out Loud on Fox News. 

New Gingrich’s views on obstruction of justice are a wee bit divergent from when his role as the Speaker of the House was LEADING the charge against President Bill Clinton and VOTING to impeach Clinton for articles of impeachment that included, among other things, an obstruction of justice charge. "What you have lived through for 2.5 long years is the most systematic, deliberate obstruction-of-justice, cover-up, and effort to avoid the truth we have ever seen in American history," Gingrich said in 1998.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/17/newt_gingrich_now_says_the_president_technically_can_t_even_obstruct_justice.html

 

In fairness to Gingrich, it may be that he didn't see this until just the other day, and that's what changed his mind.  

 

 

On 6/15/2017 at 8:00 AM, tonray said:

It won't matter because even if Mueller finds he is guilty, the only way to prosecute a sitting President is via impeachment and the current Congress will not do that. Furthermore, even IF the DEMS take back the House in 2018, it is unlikely they can wrest control of the Senate, thereby making removal from Office not possible.

 

The fight is 2 fold, expose and resist. Exposure is working as Trump's lies are being called out daily, Resistance can only work by regaining control of the House in 2018. I believe it will be 4 years unless Trump himself implodes which is a possibility.

 

 

He could certainly end up being impeached but a conviction would be a different matter altogether.

9 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

They are probably linking to it because it is an actual official statement from a named source, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

It really matters not which media outlet they choose to quote as all will be the same, carrying the actual written statement made.

 

I realize you are new to this but, you are incorrect.

 

I and others have posted countless links with facts, with actual quotes from the horse's mouth.

 

But if the Trumpeteers don't like these facts, generally their first resort is to disparage the source.

 

Or, ignore it completely.

27 minutes ago, iReason said:

 

I realize you are new to this but, you are incorrect.

 

I and others have posted countless links with facts, with actual quotes from the horse's mouth.

 

But if the Trumpeteers don't like these facts, generally their first resort is to disparage the source.

 

Or, ignore it completely.

 

Pity nobody took your stance when dt  deliberately said many obviously and well known to be untrue things about Obama, obvious example, trump claimed dozens of times that Obama wasn't born in the USA. 

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Considering every Trump thread is filled with vile, revolting language about Trump that is always off topic, and the anti Trumpers always use unverified leaks from un named sources as if it were true, while refusing to actually engage in a reasonable debate about the few facts that have come out, your reply is .

 

You almost got me to say something that would get me suspended, which is, IMO, your plan by all your personal flames against me, but I'm not going to give you the satisfaction.

 

10 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Considering every Trump thread is filled with vile, revolting language about Trump that is always off topic, and the anti Trumpers always use unverified leaks from un named sources as if it were true, while refusing to actually engage in a reasonable debate about the few facts that have come out, your reply is .

 

You almost got me to say something that would get me suspended, which is, IMO, your plan by all your personal flames against me, but I'm not going to give you the satisfaction.

The most off topic arguments are posted by the Trump fans. And please remember , and I know that's difficult, you as a a big Trump fan, defend this clown till the end. It doesn't matter hat he does or say!

You and your fellow trumpeteers defend this clown, whatever he does!

Well one thing he was right about;

"I could shoot somebody on fifth avenue, and will not loose a vote!!"

And that's because off people like you, who support this orange clown!

 

1 minute ago, dutchisaan said:

 

The most off topic arguments are posted by the Trump fans. And please remember , and I know that's difficult, you as a a big Trump fan, defend this clown till the end. It doesn't matter hat he does or say!

You and your fellow trumpeteers defend this clown, whatever he does!

Well one thing he was right about;

"I could shoot somebody on fifth avenue, and will not loose a vote!!"

And that's because off people like you, who support this orange clown!

 

Off topic does not give another poster the right to make insulting personal remarks against me or any other poster that he does not agree with.

I have posted the forum rules about flaming, stalking and trolling, as obviously some posters do not know what they are.

 

I have the right to support Trump on here, just as you have the right to oppose him, but a few posters think they have some right to troll, flame and personally insult any poster they disagree with, which is bringing the forum into disrepute, IMO.

1 hour ago, iReason said:

 

I realize you are new to this but, you are incorrect.

 

I and others have posted countless links with facts, with actual quotes from the horse's mouth.

 

But if the Trumpeteers don't like these facts, generally their first resort is to disparage the source.

 

Or, ignore it completely.

I will question the validity of the source when it is unnamed, especially if it initiates from WP, NYT, and others who are undeniably bias and do daily print stories citing unnamed sources.

However, even they are perfectly able to reprint a written statement such as that to which I was referring from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

And yes even the antitrumps are capable of posting links with facts, with actual quotes from the horse's mouth. However, I would say more often than not it comes from an unnamed source, or is just someones opinion rather than a fact.

 

 

1 hour ago, PattayaJames said:

I will question the validity of the source when it is unnamed, especially if it initiates from WP, NYT, and others who are undeniably bias and do daily print stories citing unnamed sources.

However, even they are perfectly able to reprint a written statement such as that to which I was referring from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

And yes even the antitrumps are capable of posting links with facts, with actual quotes from the horse's mouth. However, I would say more often than not it comes from an unnamed source, or is just someones opinion rather than a fact.

 

 

The problem you have is that time and time again the unnamed sources were proven very much correct.

What would Watergate have been without deep throat?

Next ...

2 hours ago, PattayaJames said:

I will question the validity of the source when it is unnamed, especially if it initiates from WP, NYT, and others who are undeniably bias and do daily print stories citing unnamed sources.

However, even they are perfectly able to reprint a written statement such as that to which I was referring from Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

And yes even the antitrumps are capable of posting links with facts, with actual quotes from the horse's mouth. However, I would say more often than not it comes from an unnamed source, or is just someones opinion rather than a fact.

 

 

I will question the validity of anything that comes out of Trumps mouth, or his cohorts!

And yes, the trumpeteers are capable of posting links with no facts.

However, most of the stuff we know now came from the orange horse mouth, so not everything is a unnamed source. Just use tweeter!

I see that some posters wish to hold other posters responsible for their inability to stay on topic.  

 

I suggest that members stop with the personal commentary.