• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

If the Russian documents are real?

Gee there’s a totally non-biased “article.” Give me a break.

It is obvious you didn’t read it because it specifically states the parts of Nunes memo that were correct and the parts that are not. It is completely unbiased.

Thanks for showing your true bias over and over.

From the piece:
What follows is a close examination of truth and falsehood, disinformation and counter-disinformation in the Nunes and Schiff memos. We intend it as a kind of case study—valuable not just for historical accountability with respect to Nunes and Schiff and those in the press (including one of the present authors) who sided with one or the other of them, but also as future-looking guidance for situations in which political actors are using complex fact-patterns involving nonpublic information to advance contested claims on high-stakes matters.
 
Now this one is funny given how the FBI relied on it so heavily.
Steele was the first to say that the Russians were helping Trump and that Trump knew about it. That has been verified as fact. Is that why you have this obsession with him?
 
It is obvious you didn’t read it because it specifically states the parts of Nunes memo that were correct and the parts that are not. It is completely unbiased.

Thanks for showing your true bias over and over.

From the piece:
What follows is a close examination of truth and falsehood, disinformation and counter-disinformation in the Nunes and Schiff memos. We intend it as a kind of case study—valuable not just for historical accountability with respect to Nunes and Schiff and those in the press (including one of the present authors) who sided with one or the other of them, but also as future-looking guidance for situations in which political actors are using complex fact-patterns involving nonpublic information to advance contested claims on high-stakes matters.
No, I didn’t read it. I skimmed it. My opinion skewed when in the first 100 or so words it refers to Nunes as a conspiracy theorist and “of all people.” So yea color me a little skeptical of the writer’s objectivity.
 
No, I didn’t read it. I skimmed it. My opinion skewed when in the first 100 or so words it refers to Nunes as a conspiracy theorist and “of all people.” So yea color me a little skeptical of the writer’s objectivity.

One thing that is most definitely true is Nunes is and will always be remembered for being a Trump loyalist. Nunes is simply dumb.
 
I mostly read.

I have to admit that most of my understanding of the current events part of the news is gained right here.

Seems to have a greater possibility of exposing more than one side of any topic.
 
Proof is in the Pudding. Just look around.

I mean come on the useful idiot lead an attack on our Government.

Hate, no ridiculous. I like the "United", yes "United" States of America.

I do, too.

However, your love for the country does not infuse facts or even examples into a post where there are none.

Your post here is another example of that style.
 
One thing that is most definitely true is Nunes is and will always be remembered for being a Trump loyalist. Nunes is simply dumb.
Which might cloud one's ability to objectively view his memo. And wow have we gotten off-topic here. But always a fun discussion.
 
I've deduced that you don't know what you're talking about. You're just trying to get in some baseless insults because you have no actual refutation. What's next from you, "nuh uhh!"?

Refusing to listen to those that disagree with you is your "Go To" move.
 
Which might cloud one's ability to objectively view his memo. And wow have we gotten off-topic here. But always a fun discussion.

No rational person can listen to or read anything from Nunes and come away with the opinion he is a go to guy.
 
Back
Top Bottom