oldtimer Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 I think your point is that it doesn't matter. Loss of confidence is still loss of confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 55 minutes ago, oldtimer said: I think your point is that it doesn't matter. Loss of confidence is still loss of confidence. You are correct about that. However, there is a flip-side. In a free society, there's not a lot you can do about people chasing down false conspiracy theories. We've covered that, already, and most everyone agrees. That said, my post of the Gowdy/Strzok materials has more meat on it than the Russian collusion and Facebook narratives. There literally is nothing to those, except speculation. Maybe one day, they can piece it all together. In the meantime, we know that there was enough meat on the bone re: Strzok and Page because they were fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 The problem I see is that you contradict yourself. On the one hand, this "meat" led to the proper conclusion, therefore, there is no erosion of confidence. On the other hand, there is "speculation", often arising from false sources or even from satirical sites, that people take up and spread as true, and lead to calls of lock someone up even by authority figures. Your "meat" in some cases will appear, in others, it is mere speculation. Which leads to an "erosion of democracy?" The "meat" or the lies which may come from a variety of sources, both foreign and domestic? As you say, conspiracy chasers will always be around, but when the real conspiracies are brought to light, then it shows that the system works, not that there is an "erosion of confidence." The problem anymore is that many now refuse to acknowledge facts if they disagree with what the facts show. That can be seen in places of authority, and to me that is where the real erosion of confidence and the threat to democracy exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfbane Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 Facebook: Best avoided... along with death and cucumbers! Wb 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 42 minutes ago, oldtimer said: On the one hand, this "meat" led to the proper conclusion, therefore, there is no erosion of confidence. That's the flaw in your logic. Trust is built over time, even though it can be destroyed rapidly. 42 minutes ago, oldtimer said: The problem anymore is that many now refuse to acknowledge facts if they disagree with what the facts show. I agree with this, and we all do it, more or less. Some more. Others less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 The crux is do you think truth or fiction is more harmful?? People will always speculate before the truth is revealed. The truth though will stand the test of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted December 2, 2018 Share Posted December 2, 2018 There are no good guys anymore fellas. We are just witnessing the parties turn to true cannibalism. You don't judge by the good anymore, just the quantity of bad. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 On 12/2/2018 at 5:36 AM, Jeff Matthews said: You're kidding me, Keith. Really? You think that's some kind of scam by Gowdy and the Inspector General? WJW! The video below is Strzok's self-defense against Gowdy. Listen to Strzok's final summation, where he suggests Gowdy is eroding the public's confidence in the FBI through all that innuendo. What Strzok has missed is that the FBI did this to itself. It started to become evident when Comey took over Lynch's job as Attorney General and said there would be no prosecution because they could not establish intent. This move by the FBI was unprecedented, and it usurped its authority. That was the biggest mistake ever by the FBI. It opened the public's eyes that "something's not right." It put the FBI under public scrutiny. The rest has been unfolding since. I appreciate how your camp can still maintain that Strzok's personal views somehow had no effect on the way he conducted himself, professionally. However, certainly, you are smart enough to know that this period of time in the FBI's history was replete with mismanagement, blunders and improper conduct. Strzok, for example, admits Mueller released him from his duties due to the appearance of bias. Listen for yourself. Strzok was released by your man, Mueller. Mueller needed to protect the integrity of his own investigation from Strzok and Page. Can you honestly maintain that Mueller should not have released Strzok? I know you're not an attorney, so maybe this will help: Let's say you are being prosecuted for some crime. Let's say further the judge on your case has been texting his buddy saying, "That Keith is scum! He deserves 1,000 life sentences!" When those text messages are revealed, what do you expect to happen? Just to hit it lightly so as not to waste much of my precious time. First, you just can't get it. I have no 'side'. It ain't me against you. If you feel that way then all is lost in your case. $hit smells the same whether it's on your shoe or mine. It's a non-partisan aroma. I didn't listen to the video. I saw Curt's son and dismissed it. Like using a convicted drug dealer for your primary defense witness. Weak. Remember Benghazi. He spent years investigating. His words after years of investigating were "U.S. troops would have been unable to reach four Americans killed at the American consulate in Libya in time to save lives" and “Whether or not they could have gotten there in time, I don’t think there is any issue with respect to that — they couldn’t.” Exactly the same findings that were known over 2 years earlier. Even the R's called his investigation a "carnival road show". He's a clown (my words). Kevin McCarthy boasted that the probe had succeeded in bringing down the D's presidential polling numbers. Then, back to Curt's boy “The goal is to win — that’s the goal. The goal is to win" and also “I don’t have a lot to show for the last seven years. “You won’t see me running for political office again, I’m done.” Well thank goodness for that. Oldtimer pretty much encapsulated my thoughts. Curt's son has done nothing for his constituents except to erode confidence in the system which, your words, threatens our democracy. But he's not alone, even on "MY SIDE". That's why I'm anti-incumbent. As to your video above, that was handled. Expeditiously. Try to find more credible primary sources. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 17 minutes ago, T2K said: Try to find more credible primary sources. When you conclude with a statement like that, I know your belief that you are not "on a side" is disingenuous. I do appreciate that Gowdy's grandstanding is divisive. That doesn't exonerate Strzok, et al. It seems you think the Strzok matter should have been handled differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 7, 2018 Share Posted December 7, 2018 It was not a consulate so much as a CIA outpost. The ambassador was playing cia guy, running guns to the middle east, it was so thrilling for him. All of the consternation about what happened ignores these fundamental facts. The enemy knew it, and attacked. It may have been State in name, but in reality it was CIA. Is CIA part of State? Pretty much, but there is a modicum of separation for public consumption (diplomatic) purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted December 8, 2018 Share Posted December 8, 2018 8 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said: When you conclude with a statement like that, I know your belief that you are not "on a side" is disingenuous. I do appreciate that Gowdy's grandstanding is divisive. That doesn't exonerate Strzok, et al. It seems you think the Strzok matter should have been handled differently. I don't remember any proven damage done by the 2 agents. They were fired as they should have been. As I've said many times, my opinion is in the middle of the 2 extreme 'sides' we have nowadays. Keith 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 11, 2018 Author Share Posted December 11, 2018 On 12/1/2018 at 6:07 PM, Jeff Matthews said: On 12/1/2018 at 3:22 PM, Zen Traveler said: Google the name Jerome Corsi. Heck, there is a one-word conspiracy theory I could use that was investigated during the last administration but it actually did prove to be a "witch hunt." Did he run any of the campaign's FB ads? I'm not sure what point this has to do with what the documentary covers. He started the "Obama was born in Kenya' conspiracy theory that Donald Trump ran with and became politically famous for, On 12/1/2018 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Matthews said: On 12/1/2018 at 3:35 PM, Zen Traveler said: So, you aren't concerned about the truth? Not in the sense you seem to be. I know many people who love conspiracy theories of all kinds - not just politics. They like stories about UFO's and extra-terrestrial beings. They like stories about how Big Pharma is suppressing known cures of cancer so they can line their pockets. These people have always been around. They like what they read, whether it's true or not. They do not want to fact-check this using the material you think they should. It's their business. Leave them alone. Feel free to debate them as much as they want to engage, but censorship laws and regulations aren't appropriate here. We agree on that. The point you seem to be missing by bringing up "Censorship" is that we agree that Government shouldn't be the ones doing it but it is dangerous to treat false conspiracy theories as truth, and yes I definitely think it has something to do with how a lot of people consume news--You buy into it being okay and I contend folks are duped into things that are not true and the President's twitter feed is full of propaganda on a daily basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 11, 2018 Author Share Posted December 11, 2018 On 12/1/2018 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Matthews said: I predict that if Trump loses in 2020, your camp will think FB fixed the problem. If not, it will demand stricter regulation. Parscale said he is going to use FB again, so enjoy the ride and watch it play out. Wait! Now you are making it all about "Facebook" and I contend the problems in the 2016 Election were well beyond that and WAY beyond what we could discuss here--Fwiw, I started the thread to show how much propaganda was being spread and we saw FIRST HAND what people were saying about what "their wives and womenfolk" thought of one of the candidates and they knew this because they witnessed it on "Facebook." At the time none of us dudes were on and thought it was something that chicks did....:0 On 12/1/2018 at 8:00 PM, Jeff Matthews said: If you want to see collusion and a smoking gun, look no further than this. In my opinion, this is a far greater threat to democracy than FB ads. Again--You keep calling the crap that people were seeing on Facebook as "Ads" and the point being people didn't realize they were seeing "Ads" but News stories--In the BS Forum I was the one who had to address those stupid "Ads" people were posting as News and why I started a thread on it prior to the election. On 12/2/2018 at 5:36 AM, Jeff Matthews said: What Strzok has missed is that the FBI did this to itself. It started to become evident when Comey took over Lynch's job as Attorney General and said there would be no prosecution because they could not establish intent. This move by the FBI was unprecedented, and it usurped its authority. That was the biggest mistake ever by the FBI. It opened the public's eyes that "something's not right." It put the FBI under public scrutiny. The rest has been unfolding since. I'm definitely not getting into the weeds with you on this one because I watched the entire hearing and Strzok wasn't the villain although he shouldn't have put so much of his thoughts in writing. That said, consider who you keep defending and realize he is in more legal hot water than anyone I've supported since you and I have been conversing on these subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 11, 2018 Author Share Posted December 11, 2018 On 12/7/2018 at 11:46 PM, T2K said: On 12/7/2018 at 3:08 PM, Jeff Matthews said: When you conclude with a statement like that, I know your belief that you are not "on a side" is disingenuous. I do appreciate that Gowdy's grandstanding is divisive. That doesn't exonerate Strzok, et al. It seems you think the Strzok matter should have been handled differently. I don't remember any proven damage done by the 2 agents. They were fired as they should have been. There wasn't and in fact if you watched the entire hearing Jeff linked you would come to the same conclusion. Yep. I can dig why they were fired but as was pointed out, pretty much everyone in the Intelligence and Diplomatic community was concerned because he didn't seem to have a grasp of global affairs when it came to our Foreign Policy.....Most global Foreign Policy experts are still concerned and Russia has been raised to a higher status because of the current POTUSA's overtures and admiration. Weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said: On 12/1/2018 at 6:07 PM, Jeff Matthews said: On 12/1/2018 at 3:22 PM, Zen Traveler said: Google the name Jerome Corsi. Heck, there is a one-word conspiracy theory I could use that was investigated during the last administration but it actually did prove to be a "witch hunt." Did he run any of the campaign's FB ads? I'm not sure what point this has to do with what the documentary covers. He started the "Obama was born in Kenya' conspiracy theory that Donald Trump ran with and became politically famous for, On 12/1/2018 at 6:25 PM, Jeff Matthews said: So? What if I ran with the 911 conspiracy, or the JFK conspiracy? Does that put me in cahoots with the originator of the theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 Here's something you all might find interesting: There are some interesting dynamics which come along with the fact that Cohen was Trump's attorney. We have heard all about Cohen turning state's evidence and working with Mueller. Well.... Cohen is an attorney, and he is bound by the rules of professional ethics. One of those rules concerns the confidentiality of attorney-client communications. Attorneys are not at liberty to divulge this information to third-parties, not even to save their own butts. In fact, the client has every right to demand the attorney to keep his flapper shut. There are 2 exceptions to this rule which come to mind. First, there is the exception where disclosure is permitted in order to spare somebody from grave injury. For example, if a crazy client says he is going to kill his spouse, you can disclose this to authorities. The next exception is the crime/fraud exception. Here, usually a plaintiff sues a defendant and the defendant's attorney, alleging that both of them engaged in a conspiracy to defraud of injure the plaintiff. This rule stems from the notion that you should not be allowed to hide behind the attorney-client privilege by joining in the client's scheme. So, what is going on? I doubt Cohen is saving anyone from an imminent threat of grave harm. If anything, it would have to be the crime/fraud exception. But what could that be? If I recall correctly, I think I just recently heard there is a new theory floating around that the Stormy money was exchanged illegally. Could that be the crime? What is illegal about hush money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 § 114.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 7 hours ago, T2K said: § 114.2 That's right. I forgot. That rule is not intellectually satisfying if the hush money violates it, but I understand the rationale and the desire to construe it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zen Traveler Posted December 12, 2018 Author Share Posted December 12, 2018 20 hours ago, Jeff Matthews said: So? What if I ran with the 911 conspiracy, or the JFK conspiracy? Does that put me in cahoots with the originator of the theory? Actually, yes. The difference is that those fake conspiracy theories have been disproven and if you subscribed to them now you would indeed be a person who didn't care about facts. Otoh, if you ran for POTUSA and won after being a fake conspiracy monger then it speaks volumes about you and the people who voted for you.....Sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 Don't knock it, it can get you a pardon. Sound familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts