• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Ivanka Trump defends use of private email, brushes aside Mueller probe

Fishking said:
Proof of your dishonest premise setup by yourself. My comment stands unrefuted. Why do we need to investigate something of less severity than what Clinton did, that was said to not be a crime?
Click to expand...

Not quite correct.

The determination was that there was NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF A CONVICTION.
 
Fishking said:
Rofl...so pathetic. The only thing that's being demonstrated is your utter dishonesty, yet again. This is called precedent, bub, get over it.
Click to expand...

OK, let's get this straight. It's OK for Ms. Trump to do the same thing that Ms. Clinton did (making the assumption that it IS EXACTLY the same thing) so she shouldn't be punished but Ms. Clinton should be tossed in jail for doing it.

Is that actually your position?

Or is your position that since what Ms. Trump did and what Ms. Clinton did are the same thing since it's OK for Ms. Trump to do it then it was OK for Ms. Clinton to have done it AND since everyone should shut up about Ms. Trump doing it then they should also shut up about Ms. Clinton doing it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not quite correct.

The determination was that there was NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF A CONVICTION.
Click to expand...

Keeping in mind that no conviction is as close as our system gets to a determination of innocence.
 
Cardinal said:
You're the one who thinks billionaire-heiress and advisor to the President Ivanka Trump is just like a black person being oppressed by The Man.
Click to expand...

Good heavens NO!

Why a pair of Ms. Trump's shoes probably cost more that that "black person" makes in a week.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Keeping in mind that no conviction is as close as our system gets to a determination of innocence.
Click to expand...

No, no, no! That only applies to "Our Guys". When it comes to "Their Guys" any lack of a conviction - for whatever reason - is purely the result of loopholes (or "activist judges").
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
No, no, no! That only applies to "Our Guys". When it comes to "Their Guys" any lack of a conviction - for whatever reason - is purely the result of loopholes (or "activist judges").
Click to expand...

We lie constantly, Jordan Peterson has come close to saying that this is THE root cause of the decline of the West.
 
Cardinal said:
You're the one who thinks billionaire-heiress and advisor to the President Ivanka Trump is just like a black person being oppressed by The Man.
Click to expand...

Sorry that the point went well above your head. I'm merely applying your own logic in a situation in where you actually don't like your own logic, causing a short-circuit in your head due to cognitive dissonance, and being unable to actually refute it.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Not quite correct.

The determination was that there was NO SUBSTANTIAL LIKELIHOOD OF A CONVICTION.
Click to expand...

A fair distinction, but it still stands that what she did is substantially less egregious than what Hillary did, meaning that it's significantly even less likely of there being a conviction. This means that almost everyone who is fauxraged over this is demonstrating extreme hypocrisy.

Further, there is the matter of equal protection under the law, and that a far worse incident was let go means that there would be a violation of equal justice to do anything with this and, in the very least, a bigger waste of money.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
OK, let's get this straight. It's OK for Ms. Trump to do the same thing that Ms. Clinton did (making the assumption that it IS EXACTLY the same thing) so she shouldn't be punished but Ms. Clinton should be tossed in jail for doing it.

Is that actually your position?
Click to expand...

No.

Or is your position that since what Ms. Trump did and what Ms. Clinton did are the same thing since it's OK for Ms. Trump to do it then it was OK for Ms. Clinton to have done it AND since everyone should shut up about Ms. Trump doing it then they should also shut up about Ms. Clinton doing it.
Click to expand...

Close, but also no. What Ivanka did is not the same as what Hillary did. It's not even close. The similarities between the two basically stop in that it involves email. So if Hillary, who did something way worse, didn't get prosecuted for anything, then Ivanka most definitely shouldn't either.

If people want to actually take real legal action against Ivanka, then Hillary would need to be taken care of first, then they can move onto Ivanka.
 
Fishking said:
Sorry that the point went well above your head. I'm merely applying your own logic in a situation in where you actually don't like your own logic, causing a short-circuit in your head due to cognitive dissonance, and being unable to actually refute it.
Click to expand...

Actually, my logic was that you're displaying such a psychological obsession with Clinton that I could easily imagine you using the Whatabout Clinton defense even as you're pulled over for a speeding ticket. To be honest, if you did this with a fellow trump supporter it might even work.
 
Fishking said:
A fair distinction, but it still stands that what she did is substantially less egregious than what Hillary did, meaning that it's significantly even less likely of there being a conviction. This means that almost everyone who is fauxraged over this is demonstrating extreme hypocrisy.

Further, there is the matter of equal protection under the law, and that a far worse incident was let go means that there would be a violation of equal justice to do anything with this and, in the very least, a bigger waste of money.
Click to expand...

What she did was the height of stupidity and hypocrisy. Too bad they can't throw her in the can just for that.
 
Cardinal said:
Actually, my logic was that you're displaying such a psychological obsession with Clinton that I could easily imagine you using the Whatabout Clinton defense even as you're pulled over for a speeding ticket. To be honest, if you did this with a fellow trump supporter it might even work.
Click to expand...

This situation is directly linked to Hillary, so your comment is moronic. No one would be talking about his if the email controversy with Hillary hadn't had happened. So, again, more dishonesty from you, which is your constant state.
 
Atomic Kid said:
What she did was the height of stupidity and hypocrisy. Too bad they can't throw her in the can just for that.
Click to expand...

If that was allowed then there wouldn't be any progressive outside of prison.
 
Fishking said:
This situation is directly linked to Hillary, so your comment is moronic. No one would be talking about his if the email controversy with Hillary hadn't had happened. So, again, more dishonesty from you, which is your constant state.
Click to expand...

“Directly linked to Hillary”? Really. So you’re suggesting Clinton caused ivanka to use a private email account? Your pathological obsession with Clinton is genuinely concerning.
 
Cardinal said:
“Directly linked to Hillary”? Really. So you’re suggesting Clinton caused ivanka to use a private email account? Your pathological obsession with Clinton is genuinely concerning.
Click to expand...

That's not what I said, but you know that, so it's just more utter dishonesty from you. Will you ever post truthfully? I wonder if it's not pathological.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom