WRDL: Sign up sheet, Debate Topics & Scoreboard

Status
Not open for further replies.
I honestly tuned out on this topic months ago for this very reason.

I thought that perhaps with all the leaking going on that some of it might be actual evidence.

It's funny, I am not a trump defender by any means these days, and yet on this one issue, I somehow find myself leaning to a defense of trump.
There is significant evidence that Trump's campaign, at the highest level, colluded in the interests of the Russian government to obtain illicit information gathered by them through espionage. That's actual. The direction that should move clear-headed people is away from defense of Trump and his campaign.
 
There is significant evidence that Trump's campaign, at the highest level, colluded in the interests of the Russian government to obtain illicit information gathered by them through espionage. That's actual. The direction that should move clear-headed people is away from defense of Trump and his campaign.

I don't think there is evidence for trump and the Russian government colluding. I think you have evidence of collusion with Russian business interests, which I believe is legal.
 
It's not the least bit weird. Intercept nutters have been trying to deny the facts from the beginning, and you pretty reliably follow what they say.

Jack, you really seem to not be able to learn the lesson, that I don't fit into any of your boxes.
 
Jack, you really seem to not be able to learn the lesson, that I don't fit into any of your boxes.

20-inch-TV.jpg


On topic, what do you think of Trumpcare? Healthcare was one of the big issues in the election. You want to stand behind your vote?
 
20-inch-TV.jpg


On topic, what do you think of Trumpcare? Healthcare was one of the big issues in the election. You want to stand behind your vote?

I don't think it will ever pass. Neither party knows how to govern anymore. They just know how to be the other option in a two party system, and how to make the other side fail.
 
I don't think there is evidence for trump and the Russian government colluding. I think you have evidence of collusion with Russian business interests, which I believe is legal.
That meeting wasn't about business. The woman was a Russian government-connected lawyer who lobbies against the Magnitsky Act, and imo uses "adoption" as cover, as an insignificant part of Russia's response to the Act was to limit adoption. Hence the spies in the room with her. Neither side contends that it had anything to do with a business deal. It was admitted by Don Jr, explicitly, as an attempt to gain illicit information on Clinton. That is evidence of collusion, whether any charges come from it or not.
 
That meeting wasn't about business. The woman was a Russian government-connected lawyer who lobbies against the Magnitsky Act, and imo uses "adoption" as cover, as an insignificant part of Russia's response to the Act was to limit adoption. Hence the spies in the room with her. Neither side contends that it had anything to do with a business deal. It was admitted by Don Jr, explicitly, as an attempt to gain illicit information on Clinton. That is evidence of collusion, whether any charges come from it or not.

But where is your evidence that she was acting on behalf of the Russian government?
 
I don't think it will ever pass. Neither party knows how to govern anymore. They just know how to be the other option in a two party system, and how to make the other side fail.
This would be a reasonable statement had the dems not spent their most recent years in power governing.
 
But where is your evidence that she was acting on behalf of the Russian government?
Because she is lobbying against the Magnitsky Act. That's the first and most obvious. She's also reported to have been taking on a lot of cases on the Kremlin's side of issues. And she brought Rinat Akhmetshin. And she brought a dossier of Clinton dirt that was the product of a Russian state operation.

But maybe I should revise my opinion that it wasn't about business at all. Because there was a money launderer there too.

You know what the most cynical aspect of this is?

She was the defence lawyer for Denis Katsyv, a Russian businessman accused of laundering a portion of the proceeds from a $230m tax fraud uncovered by the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who later died in jail and whose name was used in the sanctions act.

That is sooooooooo fucked up.
 
Because she is lobbying against the Magnitsky Act. That's the first and most obvious. She's also reported to have been taking on a lot of cases on the Kremlin's side of issues. And she brought Rinat Akhmetshin. And she brought a dossier of Clinton dirt that was the product of a Russian state operation.

But maybe I should revise my opinion that it wasn't about business at all. Because there was a money launderer there too.

You know what the most cynical aspect of this is?



That is sooooooooo fucked up.

By this same standard I can show you evidence that Obama was connected to the Chicago mob, Janet Shakowsky, and the ATC.
 
By this same standard I can show you evidence that Obama was connected to the Chicago mob, Janet Shakowsky, and the ATC.
So in your best case scenario, Don Jr and Kushner and Manafort are taking a meeting with merely a bunch of oligarch crooks, and a former counterintelligence officer, in return for dirt, and lying about it from beginning to end? That's a terrible best case and I find it unlikely.
 
So your argument is that the dems don't know how to govern because they do not govern when they are not in a position to govern?

I think you know that bills werent always passed down purely partisan lines.

That serves a essential function, in compromise to pass the legislation.
 
So in your best case scenario, Don Jr and Kushner and Manafort are taking a meeting with merely a bunch of oligarch crooks, and a former counterintelligence officer, in return for dirt, and lying about it from beginning to end? That's a terrible best case and I find it unlikely.

I think it likely that she was a Russian agent, but again, if that is the standard, our CIA has explaining to do.
 
I think you know that bills werent always passed down purely partisan lines.

That serves a essential function, in compromise to pass the legislation.
You need to make an actual argument here, with some examples. I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say here, and this is a debate thread ffs.
 
You need to make an actual argument here, with some examples. I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say here, and this is a debate thread ffs.

I am saying that it takes two to tango. That the high road is an option.
 
I am saying that it takes two to tango. That the high road is an option.

Do you have any specific examples or arguments, or are you just going to throw vague idioms at me?

What's a bill that the republicans have put forward in the last 6 months (ie, since Trump was inaugurated) which the dems should have "taken the high road" on and voted for?
 
Do you have any specific examples or arguments, or are you just going to throw vague idioms at me?

What's a bill that the republicans have put forward in the last 6 months (ie, since Trump was inaugurated) which the dems should have "taken the high road" on and voted for?

I hope you don't actually think that this being a debate thread entitles you to anything.

I've made my statements.

Feel free to have the last word.
 
If we're adding topics, the most important current issue in politics--the GOP's proposed healthcare changes--should be higher on the list. But no one will actually defend it.
If anybody wants a piece of this one, it would be...expedited.
I'd love to do a healthcare debate, but you'd probably have to take the lead on that one, Fawltybud. I'm out of my depth on a lot of that stuff. It's a very popular topic, though. Hey Jack, do you think you could come up with a debate prompt for us about healthcare? I'm all ears for suggestions. I'm also combing through threads right now trying to put together other ideas to refresh the topic list in general. Anybody who reads this, feel free to throw suggestions our way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top