Serious answer for HROT political regulars
- Thread starter Lone Clone
- Start date
Is that even possible?
Answer: Yale, LeBron James, and Nancy Pelosi
Question: Name a lock, a jock, and a crock
Question: Name a lock, a jock, and a crock
Don't use triggered if you are merely offended. It is offensive to people who are actually triggered.
As I'd pointed out in your other thread: My Post (#4) in that thread convincingly proved the answer was "yes". Because it didn't mention Trump. And it addressed that the propaganda about "Flynn being mistreated" was patently false.
I have several other posts in the same thread that likewise point out the same. Not sure if I'd mentioned Trump in any of them (perhaps one out of 10 or more).
I even posted a National Review editorial which describes the allegations that the FBI was 'out of bounds' in the Flynn case as 'nonsensical'.
So, yes, there can be honest debate. But LC can continue to ignore that debate until someone falls in line 100% with "his opinion"....
Best Carnak ever was:
Answer: GE/ RCA
Question: "How do you spell "gerca"?
Answer: GE/ RCA
Question: "How do you spell "gerca"?
Forget it, Joe. You just aren't capable of participating in a rational discussion on any subject related to Donald Trump. This is an excellent example. The thread didn't mention Flynn, and in fact, I wasn't thinking of him when I started it; you acted as if it was all about Flynn. You just don't understand.
But the question did not relate to "Donald Trump", and I did not mention him in my posts regarding the FBI and Flynn.
Ergo: you seem to have fallen off the rails (again).
The thread mentioned "FBI misconduct", and the headline from 24 hrs prior was all about "Flynn being mistreated" and "perjury trapped" by the FBI.
That was an EXAMPLE of the allegations against the FBI being patently false. National Review even wrote up a scathing Op Ed on that line of propaganda.
Apparently, that's not "honest debate" for you, though.
Joe, trying to talk to you in simple English is tantamount to discussing theology with a fencepost. I can go on until I'm exhausted without making the slightest impression.
I asked if it were possible to discuss the activities of the DOJ/FBI without going down the Trump rabbit hole. You immediately set off down the hole; you assumed somebody had asked you about the Flynn situation; in short, you do as you so often do: You used a post by somebody else as an excuse to make some point of your own that didn't address the one under discussion.
My OP was not a troll or trick question. There are a number of things that I think are worth discussing that do not bear directly on the question of Trump's behavior. It shouldn't be that difficult for you to understand. Several other posters had no problem with it, including a couple with whom I usually disagree. They were able to evaluate the post based on what it said, not just see it as some kind of attack or political statement.
I have made the point before that these are separate issues. It's akin to the situation where a cop pulls over a car, searches it and finds contraband. There are two issues worth discussion. One is whether the driver of the car committed a crime. The other is whether the cop followed proper procedures or did, himself, commit a crime.
The analogy is not perfect, because I am not claiming that Trump (or any of his henchpersons) should be able to skate because of misdeeds by his prosecutors, which would be the case for the driver of the car. I use the analogy to make the point that it is entirely possible for perfidy to exist on both sides, and if so, it should be dealt with appropriately on both sides.
Whenever I have raised this point here, you and a few others have leapt in to take the discussion away from the behavior of the DOJ/FBI and steer it to the behavior of the Trumpsters.
No. I did not. And I've pointed out that I haven't mentioned "Trump" in my replies. I referred to a specific and very recent example of "allegations of FBI misconduct", regarding Flynn. And I debunked it. That was "reasonable debate".
Somehow, you contort that into being "about Trump". Even a National Review article that supports my post (#4 in the thread) is apparently not an example of "reasonable debate".
Ergo, it seems the only "reasonable debate" acceptable to you is someone giving you a bootlicking response and saying "OMG, you're SO RIGHT, DUDE!"
Appropriate answer if the question is "Is the investigation a witch hunt?". Good job on finally giving in to your rational side LC.
Not sure I ever called it a witch hunt. I'm sure I never said it should be discontinued. And even if it's a witch hunt, it's being conducted in a world where witches exist.
A number of serious questions have arisen regarding the actions of DOJ and FBI personnel in the past three years. That is what I would like to discuss. If it can be done without deflecting the discussion to Trump.
Because the original post was about "FBI misconduct", and in the 4th post in that thread, I posted the allegations of FBI misconduct surrounding Flynn had been debunked. That was the point of your original post: "Can we have a discussion about how the FBI is acting w/o bringing up Trump, etc?"
I answered with an example which proved that, "Yes, We Can!!"
