Legality of Steele Dossier in terms of Influencing US Election

[RationalityIsLost101]

I haven't researched this or fact checked as extensively as I normally would but, in effort to give information that was requested in a Trump Ukraine thread, I was able to find this interpretation that was in conjunction with a legal court ruling. I think this is what was referenced in a prior discussion of potentially why Clinton followed FEC procedures and how it's separate from Trump allegedly using the office of the presidency for personal political purposes. Then there's the idea of holding the highest office to the highest standard but I'm just going to digress from this point if I keep rambling. There's nothing wrong with seeking information. People have been really polarized lately but we all should continue asking and discussing if we want people to stay informed.

https://www.wileyrein.com/newsroom-...opher-Steele-to-Distribute-Trump-Dossier.html

"The Steele Dossier may have implicated both federal statutes, because it discussed a presidential candidate, was distributed for the purpose of influencing the election, and it also discussed policy issues. How Special Counsel Mueller and other government agencies and Congress will reconcile legal treatment of Russian-sponsored ads on Facebook and the Steele Dossier remains to be seen. One possible distinction is that Steele may have been working for the Democratic National Committee and Clinton Campaign when he disseminated the dossier, arguably rendering him an agent of Americans and the Steele Dossier speech by Americans, rather than speech by a foreign national. The case is German Khan, et al. v. Orbis Business Intelligence Limited and Christopher Steele, Case No. 2018 CA 002667 B (Superior Court of the District of Columbia). The ruling granting Steele’s special motion to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP Act was issued by Judge Anthony C. Epstein on August 20, 2018. Lawyers for the foreign businessmen have stated in press reports that they plan to appeal the ruling."

I'm not knowledgeable enough on this matter to provide anything more concrete. However, I just find it ironic that the exonerating fact involving Clinton could actually be the same right-wing talking point that she or the DNC had Steele on payroll via Fusion GPS research firm. Sometimes life has a sense of humor that we need to just stop and appreciate. So I began to dig further to attempt to find out if this point is credible or not.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-...-payments-trump-dossier-author-steele-n897506

"Steele, a former MI6 operative who opened a private firm, compiled the Trump dossier during the 2016 presidential campaign under contract to the U.S. research firm Fusion GPS.

Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia."

"The FBI also disclosed to the court that authorized the warrant that Steele was paid by people seeking to discredit Trump, but said it viewed Steele as credible."

TLDR: Oppo Research is part of our elections. Foreign nationals (Steele) who work as informants for our FBI and/or our US based research firms appears to give them a pass. Maybe it is open to interpretation as to whether or not this should be an appropriate loophole. I feel like our law is ambiguous on this matter. I can't say if that ambiguity is intentional but I can say that Trump's case is far more straightforward. I don't know if I agree with this on a personal level but DOJ and FEC seemed to not raise any objections and I can't find any direct statute that would prohibit a US based company from being prohibited to hire foreign nationals.

I don't want any inane partisan discussions on this. Provide law interpretation, something of equal substantive value, or don't bother responding. We need to have an objective informative conversation. This is a place where Clinton's alleged solicitation with a foreign national can finally be discussed as the what-about Clinton was derailing other threads. Please refrain from linking sources behind a paywall to give everyone the opportunity to read and evaluate the source provided. Thank you for your time and consideration before submitting any discussion.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

At this point i personally wish this conversation becomes a point of focus for the next guy in office. once there is plenty of qualified people that could make the right call and Legal experts are allowed to weigh in without worry of having problems for doing so (right now the environment is too partisan). If anything the current administration has brought up plenty of questions in terms of what should be legal and what should not (not trying to take a shot here to anybody either, but by textbook example a lot of good legal questions have been brought up in the last 2-3 years).

I wish i could give a more nuanced and thought out answer in this case, but to do so it would require either a legal scholar or lawyer to make the right assessments.

 

[TimPV3]

Steele wasn't the leader of another country, Hillary wasn't the President, Hillary didn't withhold military aid, and Hillary didn't publicly ask for dirt.

I just gotta say, if the Clintons were as dirty and Trump was as smart as he claims, they would be in jail. His big campaign promise was to lock her up, and it's amazing that "everyone knows they're crooks" yet nothing has been done.

 

[FAST6191]

Assuming that first article is correct in its later ponderings I find the various requirements/restrictions placed upon foreign nationals to be excessive. I can possibly see why they do it (or some of the aims -- if nothing else it means you don't just get a thousand cutouts doing their bit where international relations would otherwise be strained) but would probably go more with you are big enough and ugly enough, take it as it comes.

 

[Taleweaver]

Part of the situation is that Trump had no political experience. Yet rather than surrounding himself with knowledgeable people he surround himself with loyal (to him) people.

As a result, he might not even TRY to break the law... But I really think he sees the law as something that applies only to other people. His administration certainly acts that way (read : everyone who ever criticized him(1) has quit).

Coupled with a humble approach this might still have worked, but we all know that didn't happen. No... I rather suspect the opposite : that the government officials doing background checks on presidential candidates is normal and everyone else just abides by it on the assumption (or experience) that this isn't a political game. Trump challenged this inquiry from the start and insisted it was because of political reasons. This would have been interesting if it were true, but it wasn't.

The debate on his guilt in the matter still drags on because he effectively divided the country between party lines (2). However, the truth is (or was... This sort of thing can become a self fulfilling prophecy) that there is neutrality in the official instances.

There's also the notion of timing. If Hillary was caught in an illegal act, THEN her use of a private mail server would be suspicious. But Trump just assumes guilt based on a symptom, which defies logic ('bank robbers wear shoes. Hillary wears shoes. I'm not saying she's a criminal, but it should be investigated. And if that doesn't reveal anything... Well... I'd point out the investigators wear shoes as well'). I think he understands that juicy accusations make better headlines than the truth, and that this is worth more than dealing with the consequences. That's why the accusations are never really on a whim but in order to draw away attention from something else or to slander his opponents. the idea is that it doesn't have to be true to be effective.


(1): Ivanka is literally the only exception I know... But it's debatable whether she has a political influence
(2): to be fair: that divide was already there to begin with. It's just that other presidents overcome this issue rather than exploit it

 

[Lacius]

Admittedly, I've been drinking and didn't follow the first post entirely, but the dossier isn't what started the Mueller investigation, and the dossier wasn't illegal. It's also worth noting that nothing in the dossier has been discredited, and a bunch of it has been substantiated.

 

[SG854]

Admittedly, I've been drinking and didn't follow the first post entirely, but the dossier isn't what started the Mueller investigation, and the dossier wasn't illegal. It's also worth noting that nothing in the dossier has been discredited, and a bunch of it has been substantiated.

Nothing in the Dossier has been discredited absolutely nothing. Like Trump hiring a bunch of hookers and telling them to pee on the bed Obama slept on and getting sick sexual pleasure from that. Putin has these tapes and poor Trump is being black mailed to do his bidding. Trump is a victim in all this, he's not evil, he's being forced by that evil Putin. Golden Showers for everyone.

The debate on his guilt in the matter still drags on because he effectively divided the country between party lines (2). However, the truth is (or was... This sort of thing can become a self fulfilling prophecy) that there is neutrality in the official instances.

The divide is frustrating because you get two different interpretations of the same thing. I can't look online for an Article about, like Unemployment, and you get two different answers, its good or its bad depending on your party. And I'm thinking so what the fuck is it, good or bad? There are people that will be like I like a variety of opinions because it helps our understanding of our world and different perspectives, and I'm like, just tell me the fuckin' answer already! Whats right and whats wrong? Please for the love of God tell me. I'm tired of all this reading and searching around. I don't have time for that crap anymore. I just want to read an article and have all the facts and answers laid out me, and that's it, none of this scrambling to find answers.

At this point i personally wish this conversation becomes a point of focus for the next guy in office. once there is plenty of qualified people that could make the right call and Legal experts are allowed to weigh in without worry of having problems for doing so (right now the environment is too partisan). If anything the current administration has brought up plenty of questions in terms of what should be legal and what should not (not trying to take a shot here to anybody either, but by textbook example a lot of good legal questions have been brought up in the last 2-3 years).

I wish i could give a more nuanced and thought out answer in this case, but to do so it would require either a legal scholar or lawyer to make the right assessments.

That's the problem, us average voters don't have law school training, so we can't properly judge whats legal and not. But we vote, and we vote based on a persons legal and moral standing as well as their policies, so we need to know whats legally ok or not. But we can't even get answers because read articles and you get two different answers. Throw in there liars and snake oil sales men and its a big mess. I wish I can have better Legal understanding also so I wouldn't be screwed over and make better voting/life choices, it kind of makes me want to bust out law books and start reading. But lawyers takes years of law school just to understand anything, so its not quick and easy.


From my understanding the Dossier is legal. Hillary and the DNC hitched off a Republican never Trumper doing oppositions research. Opposition research is legal. The illegality probably comes from them miss leading the fisa courts. The Dossier itself, have you read that thing? It's like written by a 5th grader, its retarded.

Personal opinion, why should opposition research be illegal? Whether you get it from a U.S. citizen or a foreign national, or Putin, dirt is dirt, and exposing someone doing something illegal is a good thing. If its illegal then we need to change the law. And if its illegal, are people breaking this law bad people? Are Marijuana Smokers evil people even though it was illegal to smoke pot, for what they feel is a stupid law. We are exposing corruption with the help of foreign nationals. Its not like dumping toxic waste in a children's hospital, and creating radioactive mutant babies.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Nothing in the Dossier has been discredited absolutely nothing. Like Trump hiring a bunch of hookers and telling them to pee on the bed Obama slept on and getting sick sexual pleasure from that. Putin has these tapes and poor Trump is being black mailed to do his bidding. Trump is a victim in all this, he's not evil, he's being forced by that evil Putin. Golden Showers for everyone.

The divide is frustrating because you get two different interpretations of the same thing. I can't look online for an Article about, like Unemployment, and you get two different answers, its good or its bad depending on your party. And I'm thinking so what the fuck is it, good or bad? There are people that will be like I like a variety of opinions because it helps our understanding of our world and different perspectives, and I'm like, just tell me the fuckin' answer already! Whats right and whats wrong? Please for the love of God tell me. I'm tired of all this reading and searching around. I don't have time for that crap anymore. I just want to read an article and have all the facts and answers laid out me, and that's it, none of this scrambling to find answers.

That's the problem, us average voters don't have law school training, so we can't properly judge whats legal and not. But we vote, and we vote based on a persons legal and moral standing as well as their policies, so we need to know whats legally ok or not. But we can't even get answers because read articles and you get two different answers. Throw in there liars and snake oil sales men and its a big mess. I wish I can have better Legal understanding also so I wouldn't be screwed over and make better voting/life choices, it kind of makes me want to bust out law books and start reading. But lawyers takes years of law school just to understand anything, so its not quick and easy.

From my understanding the Dossier is legal. Hillary and the DNC hitched off a Republican never Trumper doing oppositions research. Opposition research is legal. The illegality probably comes from them miss leading the fisa courts. The Dossier itself, have you read that thing? It's like written by a 5th grader, its retarded.

Personal opinion, why should opposition research be illegal? Whether you get it from a U.S. citizen or a foreign national, or Putin, dirt is dirt, and exposing someone doing something illegal is a good thing. If its illegal then we need to change the law. And if its illegal, are people breaking this law bad people? Are Marijuana Smokers evil people even though it was illegal to smoke pot, for what they feel is a stupid law. We are exposing corruption with the help of foreign nationals. Its not like dumping toxic waste in a children's hospital, and creating radioactive mutant babies.

I think it would be beneficial to keep a law prohibiting foreign nationals from directly influencing our elections especially with how much our foreign policy affects the globe. That's not to say there aren't a myriad of other methods and loopholes that people can use to sway elections. If we got PACs and mega donors out that would greatly assist in giving people a more direct influence in which candidates can afford to run national elections. As the majority would be those who are beholden to small dollar donations as opposed to larger corporations. But as it stands the majority of our elected officials are beholden to that support and have no interest in cutting it off despite that it would be the best decision for the public's interest.

The point I'm trying to drive without trying to drift off topic is that our elected officials on any level of government need to work in the interests of the sovereign citizens that elected them. I wouldn't want additional promises that go against our interests due to being beholden to foreign nationals or governments in their assistance in getting that said individual elected (whether its from monetary assistance or oppo research). I can see how we want to have as much information as possible to make an informed decision on which candidate to choose from but we also have to be realistic. No information is free. Is the candidate willing to accept oppo research from a foreign national also willing to disclose the 'cost'?

OFF TOPIC:
One of the best ways to stay informed that I've learned is prioritize what information you are seeking, grab sources from 3-4 areas that range different views (BBC is my go-to global view - others who live outside of US may suggest another) and talk about it with people who are open to discuss fairly even if they disagree with your assessments. The best people to discuss with are those who are comfortable enough with what they believe that they don't need to convince you to agree with them to have a discussion. It saves time. The biggest time saver though is prioritizing what is important to seek out. (i.e. Will that information improve your daily life or affect how you plan to donate/vote? If you are an influencer, will that information be worthy enough to explain to others? If the answers are no then it's just a form of entertainment and should just be treated as such like any other form of entertainment.)

 

[Lacius]

Nothing in the Dossier has been discredited absolutely nothing. Like Trump hiring a bunch of hookers and telling them to pee on the bed Obama slept on and getting sick sexual pleasure from that. Putin has these tapes and poor Trump is being black mailed to do his bidding. Trump is a victim in all this, he's not evil, he's being forced by that evil Putin. Golden Showers for everyone.

Something not having been corroborated isn't the same thing as something being discredited. I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," but it's important to note that just about everything in the dossier either a.) has been corroborated, or b.) hasn't been discredited.

Also, Trump is arguably evil based on his actions throughout his presidency, regardless of what's in the dossier.

 

[Taleweaver]

The divide is frustrating because you get two different interpretations of the same thing. I can't look online for an Article about, like Unemployment, and you get two different answers, its good or its bad depending on your party. And I'm thinking so what the fuck is it, good or bad? There are people that will be like I like a variety of opinions because it helps our understanding of our world and different perspectives, and I'm like, just tell me the fuckin' answer already! Whats right and whats wrong? Please for the love of God tell me. I'm tired of all this reading and searching around. I don't have time for that crap anymore. I just want to read an article and have all the facts and answers laid out me, and that's it, none of this scrambling to find answers.

I understand that frustration. A good example there is the dispute between AOC and amazon. The latter wanted to open a new distribution center in (iirc) New York city. AOC lead the protest against it because amazon arranged special legal arrangements, and thus those plans were canceled. Those are the facts. But is it a good thing because these sorts of arrangements make it impossible for smaller vendors to compete (as well as milking the minimum wages amazon has to pay to its employees)? Or is it a bad thing because it would've lead to many jobs that are now not happening? This sort of thing can effectively be spun in either direction and be considered 'correct'. Heck...both sides can even coin a "the economy" argument (from amazon's stance, better distribution and lower unemployment is better for the economy. AOC can point out that a lowering of minimum wages and the increasing/strengthening of a monopoly is bad for the economy), making it a mug's game.

I've toyed with the idea of creating a thread about whether the political system in the US needs to change or not. This sort of 2-party politics is one of the disadvantages: everything can be framed in terms of "for" or "against" a political party(1).




(1): I haven't watched much of the serie Veep, but in the first episode they poke (satirical) fun out of plastic spoons. The main character wants to make a statement against it, but she's warned against it because the oil industry wouldn't have it.

 

[SG854]

I think it would be beneficial to keep a law prohibiting foreign nationals from directly influencing our elections especially with how much our foreign policy affects the globe. That's not to say there aren't a myriad of other methods and loopholes that people can use to sway elections. If we got PACs and mega donors out that would greatly assist in giving people a more direct influence in which candidates can afford to run national elections. As the majority would be those who are beholden to small dollar donations as opposed to larger corporations. But as it stands the majority of our elected officials are beholden to that support and have no interest in cutting it off despite that it would be the best decision for the public's interest.

The point I'm trying to drive without trying to drift off topic is that our elected officials on any level of government need to work in the interests of the sovereign citizens that elected them. I wouldn't want additional promises that go against our interests due to being beholden to foreign nationals or governments in their assistance in getting that said individual elected (whether its from monetary assistance or oppo research). I can see how we want to have as much information as possible to make an informed decision on which candidate to choose from but we also have to be realistic. No information is free. Is the candidate willing to accept oppo research from a foreign national also willing to disclose the 'cost'?

OFF TOPIC:
One of the best ways to stay informed that I've learned is prioritize what information you are seeking, grab sources from 3-4 areas that range different views (BBC is my go-to global view - others who live outside of US may suggest another) and talk about it with people who are open to discuss fairly even if they disagree with your assessments. The best people to discuss with are those who are comfortable enough with what they believe that they don't need to convince you to agree with them to have a discussion. It saves time. The biggest time saver though is prioritizing what is important to seek out. (i.e. Will that information improve your daily life or affect how you plan to donate/vote? If you are an influencer, will that information be worthy enough to explain to others? If the answers are no then it's just a form of entertainment and should just be treated as such like any other form of entertainment.)

Is there a cost though? To the average person Information about corruption is information about corruption, and they wouldn't care where it came from. It wouldn't hurt their chances of election and will help them to destroy their opponent. Getting that information is in the interest of the public. And I just see the people providing this information as people. A person from the U.S. or a person from Russia, they're are just people to me, their country of origin is irrelevant. Why should a person be disqualified just because he comes from Russia?


And the thing that stumps peoples is because they are only getting that information to meddle in U.S. elections to influence it in a direction. And I say, so. Then the person shouldn't have done something bad in the first place and then they wouldn't be exposed by foreign nationals. Its like your girlfriend getting mad at you because she looked through your cell phone and saw that you were cheating on her, and then you blame her for looking at your cell phone. It looks bad on you either way.


That's two different things to foreign influence, digging up dirt on political opponents and influence by campaign donations. The latter is seen as bad and the former is seen as good by the public. This ties into Julian Assange and most wouldn't care if he used foreign influence to expose corruption.


You can talk about the actual legalities of the Dossier, but I think most people would be interested with sharing their opinions rather then legalities, because its our opinions that shape law not what they tell us what to think and what should be legal and not. There's two different topics here, if foreign influence for the dossier should be legal, and the Dossier being a crapfest and if that's legal, no one is going to take the prostitute pee story seriously.



Here's a different perspective on Campaign Finance.

https://products.kitsapsun.com/archive/2000/04-08/0003_thomas_sowell__campaign_finance_r.html

I understand that frustration. A good example there is the dispute between AOC and amazon. The latter wanted to open a new distribution center in (iirc) New York city. AOC lead the protest against it because amazon arranged special legal arrangements, and thus those plans were canceled. Those are the facts. But is it a good thing because these sorts of arrangements make it impossible for smaller vendors to compete (as well as milking the minimum wages amazon has to pay to its employees)? Or is it a bad thing because it would've lead to many jobs that are now not happening? This sort of thing can effectively be spun in either direction and be considered 'correct'. Heck...both sides can even coin a "the economy" argument (from amazon's stance, better distribution and lower unemployment is better for the economy. AOC can point out that a lowering of minimum wages and the increasing/strengthening of a monopoly is bad for the economy), making it a mug's game.

I've toyed with the idea of creating a thread about whether the political system in the US needs to change or not. This sort of 2-party politics is one of the disadvantages: everything can be framed in terms of "for" or "against" a political party(1).




(1): I haven't watched much of the serie Veep, but in the first episode they poke (satirical) fun out of plastic spoons. The main character wants to make a statement against it, but she's warned against it because the oil industry wouldn't have it.

It can be spun in any direction to be correct, and I think the 2 party debate doesn't revolve around the fact that there are negatives and positives to every choice. So of course you'll find something that supports your party. And the thing I'm trying to look for is whats the better over all choice, what produces then least negatives and the most positives. Everytime I see a capitalism is evil or socialism is retarded my brain shuts off and I stop reading, they're like robots pre programed to vomit that stuff out. And you would think reading around as many articles as I can would leave me better informed with a better idea of what's the better choice as RationalityIsLost101 suggested, but I'm instead left more confused then ever, I'm like so what the fuck is it.


I think the tribalism will still exist with 4 or 5 party system. We have more then 2 right now, and it just shrunk to the most popular two. Its always going to be for and against, you can thank evolution for that, and people not going beyond their evolutionary predispositions.

 

[billapong]

I wish i could give a more nuanced and thought out answer in this case, but to do so it would require either a legal scholar or lawyer to make the right assessments.

If the past is any indication, once you get the Liberals to agree with allowing someone to make a decision or investigate into the matter, if they don't like the results they won't follow their own rules and live by the decision.

Example would be the Mueller investigation, They agreed to the situation and the situation produced no evidence of collusion and that should have settled the issue, but they refuse to accept defeat based on their own rules.

It's like a losing NFL Team crying about losing and trying to get the rules of the game changed because they suck at football and lost.

If both sides agree on someone to make a decision in the matter, then if the Left loses will they be able to accept they lost? That's what I'm asking.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

If the past is any indication, once you get the Liberals to agree with allowing someone to make a decision or investigate into the matter, if they don't like the results they won't follow their own rules and live by the decision.

Example would be the Mueller investigation, They agreed to the situation and the situation produced no evidence of collusion and that should have settled the issue, but they refuse to accept defeat based on their own rules.

It's like a losing NFL Team crying about losing and trying to get the rules of the game changed because they suck at football and lost.

If both sides agree on someone to make a decision in the matter, then if the Left loses will they be able to accept they lost? That's what I'm asking.

Tell me more about this interesting theory of yours. knock yourself out. Dont spare any details. Dont worry about facts though I am sure they are not needed.
Also please tell me your entire belief structure how liberals are the most evil entity of our times. Please, go ahead.

The reality is that there is no debate when people argue in inherent bad faith or when they see the world in monochrome. Every post you make you quickly write off more than half the folks. Something that outside of you and 1 other poster, people rarely do in this board. To you we live in a red vs blue world. No nuance. Its almost like a caricature of people's belief systems.

I am sure you will reply saying how i am hateful, intolerant or how dissent equals hatred towards you, or something among those lines, yet you will give a provocative response to some other post i will make in a thread in this forum because you crave a knee- jerk response from the posts here, even if that involves picking provocative topics, or resorting to bottom of the barrel arguments.

You know what the beauty of it all is? In how you are allowed to thrive in discussion here because you try to sell off thinly veiled ad-hominems as arguments. Seems to get you by enough to not get you in trouble and allow a subsequent post. This whole thread was not even to discuss party lines. It was to get personal opinions about interpretations of the law. You dont care. You had to make it about liberals. go figure.

After you are done, sell me a bridge. I will buy it right away.

P.S. if you do not believe me, point out once in this thread where someone has said "conservatives are X or Y" nobody has, people in particular have been discussed but not entire groups of people. As a matter of fact the original poster asked to avoid taking pot shots at the opposite party. You should learn to criticize ideas not groups of people.

 

[billapong]

Tell me more about this interesting theory of yours. knock yourself out. Dont spare any details. Dont worry about facts though I am sure they are not needed.
Also please tell me your entire belief structure how liberals are the most evil entity of our times. Please, go ahead.

The reality is that there is no debate when people argue in inherent bad faith or when they see the world in monochrome. Every post you make you quickly write off more than half the folks. Something that outside of you and 1 other poster, people rarely do in this board. To you we live in a red vs blue world. No nuance. Its almost like a caricature of people's belief systems.

I am sure you will reply saying how i am hateful, intolerant or how dissent equals hatred towards you, or something among those lines, yet you will give a provocative response to some other post i will make in a thread in this forum because you crave a knee- jerk response from the posts here, even if that involves picking provocative topics, or resorting to bottom of the barrel arguments.

You know what the beauty of it all is? In how you are allowed to thrive in discussion here because you try to sell off thinly veiled ad-hominems as arguments. Seems to get you by enough to not get you in trouble and allow a subsequent post. This whole thread was not even to discuss party lines. It was to get personal opinions about interpretations of the law. You dont care. You had to make it about liberals. go figure.

After you are done, sell me a bridge. I will buy it right away.

P.S. if you do not believe me, point out once in this thread where someone has said "conservatives are X or Y" nobody has, people in particular have been discussed but not entire groups of people. As a matter of fact the original poster asked to avoid taking pot shots at the opposite party. You should learn to criticize ideas not groups of people.

What has this have to do with Liberals setting the rules of the game, losing and then complaining they lost, getting all fussy and saying the rules need to be changed? They agreed to the rules and then don't comply once they lost.

As for your "conservatives are X or Y" that's easy, simply look at any post related to bashing Republicans, our current administration and our President. I mean, before a couple of non-Liberals joined this board 95% of the content here was just that.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

As for your "conservatives are X or Y" that's easy, simply look at any post related to bashing Republicans, our current administration and our President. I mean, before a couple of non-Liberals joined this board 95% of the content here was just that.

ok, where in this thread has that happened? I will emphasize again, criticism of a public figure or an administration does not equal
writing off an entire group of people that voted for him. This is a hyper-partisan belief and something that if were to discuss with any person in real life would generate a similar reaction of skepticism.

A more nuanced post and a more constructive one would have been to give an opinion on the legality of the dossier. You can even use arguments the administration you love uses as a defense! This is how normal discourse goes ( be prepared to get held to criticism as its par of the course for the expression of any idea in public). Most of your posts you take a pot shot at entire groups of people and then reply they are hateful when you get pushback. it is an odd pattern of behavior for someone who is trying to argue in good faith.

P.S. an apology to OP. I will refrain from going off topic any further on this. Just wanted to give a form of constructive feedback for anyone who may be reading this thread

 

[billapong]

ok, where in this thread has that happened? I will emphasize again, criticism of a public figure or an administration does not equal
writing off an entire group of people that voted for him. This is a hyper-partisan belief and something that if were to discuss with any person in real life would generate a similar reaction of skepticism.

A more nuanced post and a more constructive one would have been to give an opinion on the legality of the dossier. You can even use arguments the administration you love uses as a defense! This is how normal discourse goes ( be prepared to get held to criticism as its par of the course for the expression of any idea in public). Most of your posts you take a pot shot at entire groups of people and then reply they are hateful when you get pushback. it is an odd pattern of behavior for someone who is trying to argue in good faith.

P.S. an apology to OP. I will refrain from going off topic any further on this. Just wanted to give a form of constructive feedback for anyone who may be reading this thread

Not this thread, I mentioned 95% of the other political ones.

You're also not addressing my point about setting the rules. Why should we even get into an agreement with Liberals if they can't deal with the fact that according to the rules that were agreed upon that they lost?

 

[WD_GASTER2]

who in congress is still arguing about mueller? besides your guy is still in charge. again you just want to fight.
Current allegations have nothing to do with Mueller either. This thread is not even about Mueller!
Still this thread there was a particular ask to not make this about taking shots at entire political sides. However you want to make it about your eternal personal war against liberals for some reason. Up to this point i have tried to have discussion in good faith. I have given several chances in several posts to provide evidence of discussion in good faith. All i keep running into is into some people who want to keep going in circles and not even give a consideration that not everybody is out to get them just because they are on the opposite side of the aisle. I think i should take you as a cautionary tale of what happens when you entrench into your own beliefs and not even take the time to listen to a dissenting opinion. No worries though. I wont go any further on this. I am not trying to win some bickering contest. I just wanted to give a last attempt at good an honest self reflection. If you believe you have "won" or something, by all means. discourse among adults is rarely meant to be about getting points or pwning people whose views differ from you.

 

[billapong]

who in congress is still arguing about mueller? besides your guy is still in charge. again you just want to fight.
Current allegations have nothing to do with Mueller either. This thread is not even about Mueller either
Still this thread there was a particular ask to not make this about taking shots at entire political sides. However you want to make it about your eternal personal war against liberals for some reason. Up to this point i have tried to have discussion in good faith. I have given several chances in several posts to provide evidence of discussion in good faith. All i keep running into is into some people who want to keep going in circles and not even give a consideration that not everybody is out to get them just because they are on the opposite side of the aisle. I think i should take you as a cautionary tale of what happens when you entrench into your own beliefs and not even take the time to listen to a dissenting opinion. No worries though. I wont go any further on this. I am not trying to win some bickering contest. I just wanted to give a last attempt at good an honest self reflection. If you believe you have "won" or something, by all means. discourse among adults is rarely meant to be about getting points or pwning people whose views differ from you.

Liberals are attacking traditional American values on a daily basis, they have no regard for our way of life or our Constitution and they want to turn this country into a socialist state. They are the enemy and I will treat them as such. Usually when dealing with a group of people hell bent on destroying something you start by addressing the entire group. I know some people here on this forums talk about generalization and stereotyping as if they are negative things, but there's nothing wrong about basic organizational skills being put into place. The liberals do these things on a daily basis, but it's only wrong to them when the other side does them. I don't think I'm in the wrong for grouping Liberals together and calling them out for what they stand for and what they do and that's not going to change.

Again, I was staying on topic by replying about how the Liberals wouldn't keep their end of the bargain. You're the one going off topic.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

If the past is any indication, once you get the Liberals to agree with allowing someone to make a decision or investigate into the matter, if they don't like the results they won't follow their own rules and live by the decision.

Example would be the Mueller investigation, They agreed to the situation and the situation produced no evidence of collusion and that should have settled the issue, but they refuse to accept defeat based on their own rules.

It's like a losing NFL Team crying about losing and trying to get the rules of the game changed because they suck at football and lost.

If both sides agree on someone to make a decision in the matter, then if the Left loses will they be able to accept they lost? That's what I'm asking.

Liberals are attacking traditional American values on a daily basis, they have no regard for our way of life or our Constitution and they want to turn this country into a socialist state. They are the enemy and I will treat them as such. Usually when dealing with a group of people hell bent on destroying something you start by addressing the entire group. I know some people here on this forums talk about generalization and stereotyping as if they are negative things, but there's nothing wrong about basic organizational skills being put into place. The liberals do these things on a daily basis, but it's only wrong to them when the other side does them. I don't think I'm in the wrong for grouping Liberals together and calling them out for what they stand for and what they do and that's not going to change.

Again, I was staying on topic by replying about how the Liberals wouldn't keep their end of the bargain. You're the one going off topic.

No you are off-topic, spouting inane partisan talking points with no productive discussion, refer back to the original discussion or move on to create your own thread to rant in. I've made it very clear in my OP. There's no ground for you to stand on. If you wish to continue posting, bring a reputable source and a point that addresses the topic.