My Last Feature On The Futility Of Arguing With A Republican Sparked A Dynamic Debate *Sigh*

Of course my recent post Study Finds Debating Table Lamp More Engaging Than Average Republican triggered a spirited debate. Ahhh, irony, it’s what’s for Discord. It was a much better debate than the lead up to the presidential election. Not that that’s saying much. My friend and blogvesary, Pokey McDooris, is all up in arms about this “salacious and unverified” dossier as it relates to the Russia probe, but what if it’s accurate? Is it really such a stretch that Mr. “Grab ’em by the pussy” could be salacious in private? Any port in a Stormy? And, if it remains unverified, don’t we just need a urine sample?

Here’s Pokey’s first comment on my article, which is essentially a list of leftwing atrocities:

Pokey McDooris: I repeatedly ask members of the left (including yourself) to confirm or deny these alleged facts:

    1.) Ms. Clinton said repeatedly that she did not have any classified emails on her server.
    2.) 113 emails on her private server were found to have classified information (three had classification markers)
    3.) It is a crime to mishandle classified information…

(Sorry, I put the rest at the bottom of the page to spare you the other 47 points *sigh*.)

Mick ZanoMick Zano: I have addressed all of Hillary’s assaults on mankind and, sadly, will be forced to do so for years to come. If you want to harass an unemployed woman, be my guest. But remember that today, a sitting president–with a job and with and an ongoing relevance to our collective future–is failing to acknowledge a coordinated effort by Russia to interfere with our elections and, more importantly, he is failing to meet the basic responsibilities of the office. And, when this Russia probe is over, his cabinet will break both the indictment record and possibly our republic itself. If you want to lock her up, fine, I could care less. This would be relevant were she president, albeit barely. But I would like to point out, once again, what I have always predicted would happen. The most relevant criticism of Hillary Clinton in the 21st century is whether or not she weaponized the DNC to defeat her opponent Bernie Sanders. Notice how that one is overlooked in your list of hangable offenses? All along I warned that if you focus on the 90% garbage on Fox and Frauds, you will overlook the 10% of your argument that may actually be valid. I encourage you to stay on that point, because it may prove relevant. I realize relevancy is no longer the MO of the republican party. Personal responsibility and individual freedom has been replaced with distraction and disparity. History will eventually relegate your list into two camps, either crap or poop.

 

Pokey McDooris: Your article was about Republicans not accepting facts. I’m not stating these facts for the purpose of criticizing Hillary Clinton; I’m stating these facts as they pertain to the FBI bias in the current investigation. Most people I speak with on the Left, do not acknowledge these facts. Do you acknowledge that while the FBI was exonerating Hillary Clinton they were spying on her political adversary’s campaign, and that they gained permission to spy on Trump’s campaign only by using the Steele dossier which was paid for by the Clinton campaign? Do you acknowledge these facts?

 

Mick ZanoMick Zano: That’s an important point. If a small irrelevant fact is told in the woods, with no one there to hear it, does it still lead to an indictment? Yes, of course, some of it’s true. It’s always about some false equivalency. The usual processes of our DOJ and our intelligence agencies does not trump Russia’s attempt to tip our election. Thankfully our intelligence community was onto Carter Page early, through a legally obtained FISA warrant. Amidst the rest of that contrived nonsense, the Nunes memo admitted that the investigation started with George Papadopoulos, not the dossier. Even if that’s wrong, which it’s apparently not, the dossier funding started with Fusion GPS not Hillary. Why don’t we care what’s in the dossier? It seems to be panning out and the British intelligence officer who wrote said ‘it’s likely 70 to 80% accurate’. So why are you giving the benefit of the doubt to the KGB over a Kingsman type? Have you met with, corresponded with, or traveled to meet with anyone with ties to the Kremlin, Pokey? I have Mueller’s email and I understand how to legally obtain a FISA warrant. This conversation has been monitored for your protection.

 

Pokey McDooris: The issue–could the FBI have obtained the FISA warrant without the dossier?

 

Mick ZanoMick Zano: Yes. As it turns out the court system’s process for obtaining a FISA and continuing one is very stringent and the Fox News inquiries into any suspected liberal wrongdoing …not so much.

 

Pokey McDooris: That is my point. The process for obtaining a FISA warrant and continuing one is very stringent. What evidence did the FBI present to the FISA judge to convince him that there was probable cause to believe that Carter Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power? [Winslow: We would know if the Whitehouse had released the un-redacted response memo from the House Intelligence Committee Democrats] Perhaps they had that probable cause. But if the FBI’s necessary piece of evidence was the “salacious and unverified” dossier then we have a problem. Did the FBI inform the FISA judge that the investigation that resulted in the dossier was paid for by a political party that was presently engaged in a contest for the most powerful position in the world? IF (and it’s a big IF) the FBI worked with Democratic Party to compromise their political adversaries …well, let’s just say it would be far more grievous than what the Democratic Party did to Bernie Sanders. These answers can and will be discovered.

This is an entirely different subject than the fact that Russia worked to influence our presidential election. The nation of Russia infiltrated our electoral process for the purpose of dividing us (Russia has a history of that–refer to my article on Stalin). This FACT should UNIFY us as Americans to do whatever is necessary to protect our Republic from the constant threat of infiltration from outside enemies.

How will we respond to such crisis?

Mick ZanoMick Zano: What Fox News does, rather effectively, is spread doubt. We don’t have all the evidence the FBI presented to the judge, so obviously that’s where the wrong doing lies. Uncertainties remain on any ‘scandal’ until every ridiculous unfounded, Hannity-sniffing-glue, lead is chased down, captured and forced to ‘rub the lotion on its skin’. Call it what it is, a distraction. Even your version of the dossier events is true, it’s still debatable if Clinton even broke the law.

It’s always the same thing, let’s avoid the collapse of the republic so we can catch the Clintons on some technicality. Let me assure you, the possible annulment of a presidency is not a technicality. Everything started with Papadapawhatsas, for bragging that Trump had dirt on Hillary from the Russians. Foreign agents were actively trying to groom Carter Page. He was on Trump’s team and at one point admitted he was an adviser to the Kremlin.

So it’s not news that Trump’s ‘best people’ either left or are being indicted? Should the FBI have still been focusing on Benghazi?

Anyone who had fears and suspicions of Trump and his cronies and their dubious ties to Russia should be commended and we should UNIFY around giving them front row seats for the impeachment proceedings.

This is not in the comment thread, but it’s my Hint of the Day:

Your version of events is shit, my friend, but only because your sources invariably are. That sounds a tad like all-or-nothing thinking, and it should be, but it isn’t. You wallow in the realm of either the bullshit or the trivial. When we discover most of Trump and Company were either compromised to the Russians and/or crooks, aren’t you going to feel a little silly?

What you’re failing to grasp, my friend, is how liberal politicians can muster a smattering of credibility, but your ilk has none, zero, nichts, nadda, zilch. Start citing actual news sources with your theories, or risk being ignored. Rightwing conspiracies have little to no credibility in the 21st century as they’ve led us down one too many rabbit holes. What valid point from past scandals can you point to that proved relevant? There’s next to nothing there. Just as there’s a difference between a president who fact-checkers claim lied eight times in eight years and one who lied eight times today. There’s a difference between four decades of Clinton investigations that uncovered little-to-no wrongdoing vs only one investigation that may end in treason. When this sad chapter is in the history books and it all turns out rather badly for The Donald, remember this simple trick: if Fox News is not covering something because they don’t think it’s relevant, it is. And if they are covering the shit out of something, it isn’t. Beware of this Russian-thing, Poke. When liberals investigate something there tends to be a reason. It’s a different approach, for sure. The day of reckoning is upon us, and, to the chagrin of conservatives far and wide, it will have little to do with Hillary Clinton.

Just now I read the released Dem memo. The FBI opened the investigation in July 2016, but received the Steele memo in September of that year. And when applying for an extension, the FBI clearly noted Steele’s political motivations. And the beat goes on…

 

*Here’s the rest of that list, as promised:

4.) James Comey said there is no evidence that her 30,000 deleted emails were deleted in an attempt to conceal information.
5.) President Obama told CBS in March 2005 that he learned about Clinton’s private server “through news reports.”
6.) President Obama had actually emailed Ms. Clinton on her private server.
7.) In June 2016, James Comey began writing Ms. Clinton’s exoneration letter before he interviewed her.
8.) Lorretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton while his wife was under investigation, and Lynch did not recuse herself.
9.) Sept. 2 2016–Peter Stryok and Lisa Paige discussed talking points that were prepared for them by FBI director Comey.
10.) Deputy Director McCabe testified before the committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from FISA without the Steele dossier information.
11.) The Steele dossier information was paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC.
12.) While the FBI was working to exonerate Hillary Clinton they were spying on Donald Trump’s campaign.
13.) Benghazi, Bergdahl, Uranium one. (Fine, I added that one for fun)

(Visited 84 times, 1 visits today)

  8 comments for “My Last Feature On The Futility Of Arguing With A Republican Sparked A Dynamic Debate *Sigh*

  1. pokey
    February 25, 2018 at 11:22 PM

    FACTS

    “CLEARLY noted Steele’s political motivations.”–actually it states “LIKELY a political motivation.” You know how I hate unnecessary adverbs–they obscure simple direct meaning. The FBI knew with certainty there was a political motivation, so why say “likely” when applying for the warrant? Just simply state the FACT (remember this article began about Republicans not accepting facts) that Hillary Clinton and the DNC started funding Steele through Fusion GPS research firm beginning in April 2016. Any watering down of that FACT in the FISA application signals a red light for political motivation. What the hell did Carter Paige actually do that justified the FBI spying on him and why isn’t he under arrest? It starts to look an awful lot like the FBI and the DOJ were working with the Democrats to find ways to undermine Trump and to create and “insurance policy” in case he won. No, I can’t prove it; just like I couldn’t prove that the Obama administration politicized the IRS–so you can go back to putting your head in the CSNBC sand.

    “we don’t have all the evidence the FBI presented to the judge, so OBVIOUSLY (there he goes with another adverb) that’s where the wrongdoing lies.” This is the problem with your logic–you assume the wrongdoing before its found. It’s like me saying “we don’t have all the emails that Hillary Clinton deleted, so OBVIOUSLY that’s where the wrongdoing is found.” Neither claims are OBVIOUS, though I claim that she did something INHERENTLY wrong (even criminal) in deleting the emails, but that’s another entry.

    “Dubious ties to Russia” is not a crime. OBVIOUSLY both Clinton and Trump had “dubious ties to Russia.” Both Clinton and Trump are potentially compromised by Russia. We knew this going into the election and we voted. But there are many people who didn’t accept the results. They encourage us to RESIST–lie, cheat, steal, and do anything else to undermine the Trump Presidency. I wonder if any of such individuals are working in the FBI.

    Since 2016, there have been at least 15 high ranking FBI and DOJ who were fired, resigned, or demoted. Coincidence?

    The Point–the FBI and DOJ treated Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump differently. No special counsel for Ms. Clinton. No need for Democrat’s Attorney General to recuse herself. Many of the same people who seemed to take careful effort to exonerate Clinton are now making persistent effort to undermine Trump.

    IF Trump conspired with Russia or colluded we will find out. As of yet, the FACTS don’t show it. You want to investigate? Expand it. subpoena the FISA judge, Barak Hussein, Hillary Clinton, Loretta Lynch…let’s even pull that Weiner guy and his ex-wife Humma in for questioning. Why FBI question Weiner and Humma before? This is a legalistic civil war. The Russians couldn’t have dreamed how well their plans would have worked.

    • Mick Zano
      February 26, 2018 at 12:51 PM

      The Dossier is CLEARLY LIKELY true, Ha! And no, it doesn’t seem to be crux of the investigation. So let me get this straight, Carter Page, someone arriving with Trump’s campaign team to the WH, says he works for Putin and who Russia admits they were attempting to groom, and you don’t think that warrants a closer look-see? What would meet your smell test? Would he have to have had to dress the part? He’s an idiot, like everyone else on Trump’s team, so eventually the Russians figured that out. Your folks expanded the powers of the NSA in the first place, but this one would have went down the same before or after the upgrade. Again, I am not Robert Mueller but Money Laundering (check), obstruction (check), attempted collusion (check). You should be saying, “Check please!” But instead I guess you can keep Adverb-gate alive and well for a good many news cycles.

      I guess it depends on what the definition of is, is.

  2. pokey
    February 26, 2018 at 3:30 PM

    The Anti-Trump RESISTance has repeatedly shown a skewed perspective on this issue (as well as every issue dealing with Trump). If Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for a British spy to interview Russian insiders to gather political dirt on Trump, wouldn’t this imply that the DNC colluded with Russia? In promoting the Anti-Trump rally funded by Russia, didn’t CNN and CSNBC and Michael Moore collude with Russia? Didn’t the Obama administration interfere with the Israeli election? When the Democrats talk about collusion, they mean there is no evidence of conspiracy. See conspiracy is a crime, collusion is CLEARLY LIKE and adverb.

    • Mick Zano
      February 26, 2018 at 6:35 PM

      One is a British spy (not illegal) and one is a Russian spy (illegal). You always look for dirt on your opponent, just our team knows how to do it within the bounds of the law. There’s no obvious breach of campaign finance laws, although an investigation (once again, the four decade pursuit to catch this woman on some technicality) could turn up something. You know what treason is, though, right? It’s treason. Is there enough evidence to impeach president Clinton? No. But is there enough to impeach President Ass-Clown? Yes. So how many actual indictments is it going to take before you break your attention away from the virtual quasi-semi indictments? The world may never know.

  3. pokey
    February 27, 2018 at 8:42 AM

    Of course, your side is packed full of lifelong lawyers and politicians whose sole purpose is to legally steal wealth and influence.

    It’s illegal to get information from a Russian spy? What law are you talking about? It’s a fact that the Trump administration broke laws to gain information on Hillary Clinton? What law? Treason? If there were any evidence of treason, then you wouldn’t have to throw around amorphous words like “collusion,” which to my knowledge isn’t illegal.

    What annoys me is that you dismiss the Republicans for not facing the facts. Show me the facts on this one.

    You don’t need evidence to impeach anyone. You need a majority of Congress. Your side has no FACTUAL evidence (that I can see), but that won’t stop your side. If you get the majority, you will find a “Monica Lewinski” to impeach him for.

    • Mick Zano
      March 5, 2018 at 6:32 PM

      Of course I’m dismissing everything a republican says. I think we’ve been through this, you don’t have access to something called ‘information’. Unless, of course, you have a better theory as to why republicans turn out to be wrong about everything.

  4. March 6, 2018 at 5:22 PM

    Mir hat es geholfen, dieses sehr positive Video in englischer Sprache zu sehen und hören. Man kann die Untertitel aktivieren und es wird deutlich gesprochen. Robert David Steele kommt sicher nicht nach Deutschland, das eine Kanadierin ins Gefängnis gebracht hat, weil sie sich bei ihrer deutschen Mutter für das Geschichtsbild entschuldigt hat. Er spricht über die Auflösung der UNO NATO aller US-Stützpunkte .. des Vatikans spricht alles sehr deutlich aus Vasallenstaat Unfreiheit Also, wer Lust und Zeit hat : ExCIA Robert Steele: Paedophilia-Blackmail, Criminal NASA, Google-Gestapo, 9/11-fraud, Genocide YT

    • Mick Zano
      March 9, 2018 at 10:34 PM

      Falsche Steele, Fraulein. I couldn’t find any umlauts at this hour so they’re being snail mailed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *