The Definitive "Why I Oppose Trump!" Thread

[Captain Adverse]

Y'know, if it weren't for all his other pro-Russia actions and statements, you'd have a point. But he's already shown his preference for Russia in several other ways that I listed...and when taken in the context of those other documented facts, your point goes away.

You see I isolated the NATO portion of your statement in order to address that issue singly. Be assured I will address the rest along with your other points; I am not ignoring them.

 

[sangha]

I see you edited your post as well...hmm, let me see about a more valid response.



He never said he would not defend "NATO" in the event of an attack. I quoted his response exactly, from your own citation. He said he would "if they fulfill their obligations to us." He then said if the members don't meet their obligations he would no longer "continue with existing agreements." That means pay and build your own forces up or we will pull out and let you defend yourselves. If we are no longer members of NATO, we have no obligations to do anything, how hard is that to understand?

In the post you just quoted, I said that Trump "MIGHT NOT" defend NATO nations. Not "would not"

How hard is *that* to understand.

And my concern is not whether or not we are obligated to defend them. It is about how foolish it is to not defend them, obligated to do so or not.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Some citizens think it is a waste of time, manpower, and money. Other's think it is a necessary evil because "Russia!" I agree that we should try to maintain it rather than become isolationist, but I also agree the other members need to stop assuming they can call big brother any time the other thug on the block flexes it's muscles. They are their own first line of defense after all. :shrug:

If all you have to defend the possibility of withdrawing from NATO is "well that's just an opinion", you are doing a poor job of defending him.

I think like any other inexperienced President, once in office he will depend on expert advisors to guide him in real foreign policy requirements.

Because so far, he's shown a great willingness to take advice from others :roll:

 

[Jetboogieman]

He never said he would not defend "NATO" in the event of an attack. I quoted his response exactly, from your own citation. He said he would "if they fulfill their obligations to us." He then said if the members don't meet their obligations he would no longer "continue with existing agreements." That means pay and build your own forces up or we will pull out and let you defend yourselves. If we are no longer members of NATO, we have no obligations to do anything, how hard is that to understand?

So Americas defense agreements now entirely depend on whether Trump decides he's going to fulfill the US's obligations on a whim?

That's as emboldening a statement as Putin would ever need, if we base it purely off the guideline, yes guideline, not commitment, guideline of 2% GDP for defense spending, good, Putin will know he can **** with those countries that were below the guideline :shrug:

 

[sangha]

So Americas defense agreements now entirely depend on whether Trump decides he's going to fulfill the US's obligations on a whim?

That's as emboldening a statement as Putin would ever need, if we base it purely off the guideline, yes guideline, not commitment, guideline of 2% GDP for defense spending, good, Putin will know he can **** with those countries that were below the guideline :shrug:

In addition, Trump is operating on the premise that having other nations expand their military power is A Good Thing. Intelligent people realize that it's in the US's best interest to be the one with the large military

 

[Captain Adverse]

If all you have to defend the possibility of withdrawing from NATO is "well that's just an opinion", you are doing a poor job of defending him.

I don't need to defend it, because as I explained (or thought I did) he is using it as a scare tactic to push NATO members into carrying more of their share of the load. I don't think he will pull out if elected to office, and to be honest I am not sure if he has the power to do so unilaterally.

Because so far, he's shown a great willingness to take advice from others :roll:

Now this is a rational concern I have myself. Something even I have a problem arguing with, at least at this point.

I am waiting to see if the little signs (like his apology over the $400 Million Plane video) are indicative of acceding to more management of his campaign.

In addition, Trump is operating on the premise that having other nations expand their military power is A Good Thing. Intelligent people realize that it's in the US's best interest to be the one with the large military

I believe at the present time he is operating on the business premise that reduced expenses is a good thing for the government. I also think that we will still be the big kid on the block militarily even if each NATO member upgrades by a mere 2% of their GDP and helps defray costs of US forces based in Europe for THEIR defense. :shrug:

 

[sangha]

I don't need to defend it, because as I explained (or thought I did) he is using it as a scare tactic to push NATO members into carrying more of their share of the load. I don't think he will pull out if elected to office, and to be honest I am not sure if he has the power to do so unilaterally.

You don't need to defend it? :doh

I am willing to pretend that I am acting as his defense attorney so as to try to address real concerns about his candidacy

Now this is a rational concern I have myself. Something even I have a problem arguing with, at least at this point.

I am waiting to see if the little signs (like his apology over the $400 Million Plane video) are indicative of acceding to more management of his campaign.

He didn't apologize. He didn't even admit to making a mistake.

 

[Captain Adverse]

You don't need to defend it? :doh

I don't need to defend it because I already responded to it as being a rational concern. It is a problem.

He didn't apologize. He didn't even admit to making a mistake.

Now we are getting side-tracked. I take full responsibility for bringing it up.

 

[calamity]

My criticism had nothing to do with whether he would "refuse to honor the Treaty." It was based on his comment that he might not defend NATO nations against an attack.

And the possibility that he would pull out of NATO, reinforced by his belief that NATO is "obsolete", is just an additional example of his poor judgement.



Gee, national defense costs us money?? Who knew!! :shrug:

Threatening to leave NATO if other nations don't spend more is the problem. Arguing that it's not a problem because "what's he really saying is that he'd leave NATO if other nations don't spend more" is not addressing the concern. It's merely repeating it



Again, the issue isn't whether the US is entitled to leave NATO. Please *address* the concern instead of merely repeating it

You said you would "address real concerns about his candidacy." and "I will do my best to provide rational and responsible replies to all points raised in the same vein." and "I will admit when any point presented is valid"

You have not addressed the concern that was raised nor have you admitted to the validity of the concern relating to the US not defending a NATO nation that comes under attack

I thought he did a good job addressing the questions. But, I might be a bit biased since he basically agreed with the gist of my argument on the matter

Seriously, what Trump said about NATO is only a problem because of the message it sends to both our allies and those looking for cracks in our alliances. Trump's statement was foolish. It appears to me that CA addressed that fairly well.

 

[sangha]

I don't need to defend it because I already responded to it as being a rational concern. It is a problem.

And your defense is that it's just a negotiating gambit. This conclusion of yours is not based on Trumps stating that it's a gambit, but on your interpreting his other comments, past behavior, etc. It's OK for you to infer his intentions, but if someone else does that with his multitude of comments about women or minorities, it is "vitriolic personal attacks on the candidate based on misrepresentation, labeling, and unbridled hatred"

 

[Captain Adverse]

TRUMP and RUSSIA/Ukraine:

2) His condoning Russia's aggression in the Ukraine
Donald Trump says Vladimir Putin is 'not going to go into Ukraine,' despite Crimea - CNNPolitics.com

2 - He has shown a strong preference for Russia as evinced by: his statement in a recent interview that Russia would never invade the Ukraine, even though it's well known that Russians have been in fact directly fomenting and supplying a near-civil war there with weapons and personnel.

This is not a valid foreign affairs concern. Looking at his original response cited from your link (Sangha):

"He's not going into Ukraine, OK, just so you understand. He's not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want." (But when told Russia was in Crimea) "OK -- well, he's there in a certain way. But I'm not there. You have Obama there. And frankly, that whole part of the world is a mess under Obama with all the strength that you're talking about and all of the power of NATO and all of this. In the meantime, he's going away. He takes Crimea."

He also clarified his position:

"When I said in an interview that Putin is 'not going into Ukraine, you can mark it down,' I am saying if I am President. Already in Crimea!" (and) "So with all of the Obama tough talk on Russia and the Ukraine, they have already taken Crimea and continue to push. That's what I said!"

Trump, in his own Trump-speak, was saying Putin would not be going into Ukraine if he is elected President. That Putin went into Ukraine and is still in there NOW despite all of Obama's talk and posturing.

Even you must see he was not "condoning Russia's aggression in the Ukraine." At least not from the citation quoted. This is typical campaign rhetoric about him vs. Obama as a President. That's all.

 

[Captain Adverse]

And your defense is that it's just a negotiating gambit. This conclusion of yours is not based on Trumps stating that it's a gambit, but on your interpreting his other comments, past behavior, etc. It's OK for you to infer his intentions, but if someone else does that with his multitude of comments about women or minorities, it is "vitriolic personal attacks on the candidate based on misrepresentation, labeling, and unbridled hatred"

my bad...

Trump has said that he would “certainly look at” pulling the United States out of the international security alliance, because it is “obsolete” and “is costing us a fortune.” ...While Trump has gone so far as saying that, as president, he would consider pulling the U.S. out of NATO if it is not restructured, we’ve found no instance of him saying he wants to do so at this point.

What’s Trump’s Position on NATO?

I found no evidence he actually intends to do it. In this case your point is not valid. :shrug:

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Yes, the pattern is your refusal to provide citations in support of your position, clearly specified in the OP under "Simple Rules" if you were actually seeking to participate.

My "bare assertion" is not in play here. This thread is presented for me to actually provide a direct refutation OR confirmation regarding the basis for each of your positions.

That's okay. If you feel that you cannot (or need not) provide citations that I can research and respond to in support of any of your stated "opinions," then of course that is your choice. :shrug:

That's fine. I"m not trying to be hostile, I just don't see the need to express any further what is so easily available, in original untainted form, in mere seconds.

I find his statements speak for themselves.

Take that for what you will.

 

[Captain Adverse]

TRUMP CLOSE TIES TO RUSSIA:

2 - He has shown a strong preference for Russia (or, perhaps more likely, been manipulated into that preference for Russia), as evinced by:
- (1) his statement that he might not defend our NATO allies despite a half century of preventing nuclear war by presenting a united front with our allies;
- (2) removed "aid the Ukraine against Russian aggression" (or words to that effect) from the GOP platform. This is exacerbated by his statement in a recent interview that Russia would never invade the Ukraine, even though it's well known that Russians have been in fact directly fomenting and supplying a near-civil war there with weapons and personnel.
- (3) his close ties with Russian oligarchs;
- (4) his call for the Russians to find and publish the emails of our former Secretary of State in such a way that it would interfere with our national election. BTW, please don't be so ingenuous as to try to support his later claim that he was just being sarcastic.

Okay, whether you agree with my responses or not I did already address the first two points separately since another member had brought them up. But in a later post you stated:

Y'know, if it weren't for all his other pro-Russia actions and statements, you'd have a point. But he's already shown his preference for Russia in several other ways that I listed...and when taken in the context of those other documented facts, your point goes away.

So, you accept the point that his stance on NATO, taken alone, does not show a Pro-Russia lean.

I have also pointed out that his statement about "Ukraine" was about him vs. Obama when dealing with Russian aggression. When taken in context he was saying "Putin in Ukraine? Not if I am President." That is the opposite of support for Putin.

That leaves your last two points, that he has economic ties to Russian oligarchs and his response to the email hacking.

Lets look at the Hacking comment:



Trump clearly condemns Russia if they did it, stating that they have no respect for our country. Says that hacking is wrong. Then he states:

“Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing, I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.”

Listen to what he says and exactly how he says it. If you think he wasn't being sarcastic? Who is exhibiting the bias now?

He was clearly making a slam at Hillary's expense concerning those "lost/deleted" emails unavailable for inspection from her unauthorized private server. Remember, FBI Director Comey said it was possible her server HAD been hacked:

We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html

So if Russia is the culprit and already hacked her...show us the emails! That about sums up Trumps point there.

That just leaves the close ties with Russian oligarchs:

Donald Trump is being accused of having business ties to Russia. In reality, he'd love to have them -- but he hasn't scored there yet.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2016-...632-definitive-why-oppose-trump-thread-2.html

That report is from 07/31/16. Hmm...NO TIES to "Russian oligarchs."

There have been a lot of op-ed pieces alleging hidden ties. But in trying to follow the links...I find bupkis, nada, nicht...NOTHING but allegations.

Well, as a comparison, aren't Hillary supporter arguing that her alleged ties are nothing but allegations?

So taken as a whole? The is no valid basis for your allegation that he has a "strong preference for Russia" based on the points you raised.

Summary: This is NOT a valid issue.

 

[sangha]

This is not a valid foreign affairs concern.

WHAT???!!!!

Russia's intervention is NOT a valid foreign policy concern? Are you serious?

Your claim mirrors Trumps' lack of concern for Russia's acts in the Ukraine
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...se-there-is-no-respect-for-the-united-states/

"But that's really a problem that affects Europe a lot more than it affects us.

He also clarified his position:

Trump, in his own Trump-speak, was saying Putin would not be going into Ukraine if he is elected President.

1) "Trump-speak"??? The fact that you can't defend him without claiming he's speaking some other language speaks about his unsuitability to be president. The words of a US president can shake markets world wide, and start or end wars. Trump can't even clearly state his own opinions without sounding ignorant.

The simple fact of this matter is that Trump said that Russia would not go into Ukraine even though Russia has already done so

2) I know that Trump has a long record of saying one thing and then "clarifying" it by saying he meant something completely different later on, but that doesn't pass the smell test. It's obvious that he just did not remember that Russia already was in the Ukraine. And even after that was pointed out to him, he had to hedge about it with his "he's there in a certain way. "

WTF does that mean? A "certain way"?? Russia is there.

3) In typical Trump fashion, he claims he would be so strong about Ukraine that Russia wouldn't have intervened, yet in other statements he has expressed a lack of concern for the Ukraine

"But that's really a problem that affects Europe a lot more than it affects us. And they should be leading some of this charge."

Trump has said in the past that he "would not care that much" whether or not Ukraine was allowed to join NATO. ("Whether it goes in or doesn't go in, I wouldn't care," he told NBC's Chuck Todd last month. "If it goes in, great. If it doesn't go in, great.")

4) He has also provided a justification for Russia's takeover in Crimea
What you need to know about Donald Trump, Russia and Ukraine | PolitiFact

The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.

Even you must see he was not "condoning Russia's aggression in the Ukraine." At least not from the citation quoted. This is typical campaign rhetoric about him vs. Obama as a President. That's all.

Of course he's condoning it. AFAIK, he not only hasn't said one word criticizing it during the campaign, he has said he would consider lifting the sanctions we imposed in response to Russia's adventurism.
Donald Trump Appears to Back Russia's Annexation of Ukraine's Crimea - The Atlantic

The question came from Mareike Aden, a German reporter, who asked him whether a President Trump would recognize Crimea as Russian and lift sanctions on Moscow imposed after its 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory. The candidate’s reply: “Yes. We would be looking at that.”

Did you get that? Trump would consider lifting the sanctions imposed on Russia for its' annexation of Crimea!! Trump's official position not only contains no actual response to Russia's involvement in the Ukraine, his campaign actively worked to remove a response from the GOP's platform
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...trump-campaign-denies-its-own-ukraine-policy/

That amendment passed, codifying the Trump staff’s language as official GOP policy. In an interview with ABC on Sunday, Trump confirmed that his people were behind the change.

“They softened it, I heard, but I was not involved,” Trump said.

Are you sure you understand what the word "condone" means?

Synonym Discussion of condone
excuse, condone, pardon, forgive mean to exact neither punishment nor redress. [/QUOTE

Trump has not sought any redress or punishment or censure for Russia. He will consider reversing the punishment (ie sanctions) that have been imposed. And he has offered a justification for Russia's action (ie "The people of Crimea, from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia")

In what way exactly is that not "condoning"?

 

[sangha]

my bad...

What’s Trump’s Position on NATO?

I found no evidence he actually intends to do it. In this case your point is not valid. :shrug:

The fact that he would consider doing so is the issue. It demonstrates poor judgement and ignorance

And the fact that he considers NATO "obsolete" and a bad deal for the US certainly does indicate that he would do so. Do you have any evidence that indicates he would stay in NATO?

Furthermore, you yourself posted evidence that he would pull out of NATO. You said that Trump would pull out if the other NATO nations did not fulfill their commitments to spend 2% of GDP.

 

[bubbabgone]

Incorrect. MUCH has been refuted, you just refuse to accept this fact.

The point of THIS thread is to address the factual basis for your "opinions." Your position is based almost entirely on the fallacy of an argumentum ad populum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Such arguments have been based on slanted media reports about what Trump is alleged to have said, or done; salted with a portion of truth to give them credibility.

An unbiased eye, taking the time to actually follow the trail back to the source material (his actual statements) shows a tendency of the media sources to "editorialize" his statements to fit their talking points.

I actually wasn't a supporter of Trump at the initial phases of his campaign. I thought he had little or no chance to win, and honestly believe his original candidacy was noting more than a publicity stunt.

Then I heard all these accusations of racism, misogyny, and xenophobia; so I went and watched the videos and read the statements quoted. Invariably, they did not support the allegations broadcast and lampooned in the media. That's when I started to pay more attention to his campaign.

So I am sorry, but I must disagree. I offer again to respond to any citations evidencing your talking points, because the claim "everybody already knows what he said' is clearly false, since the reports do NOT reflect what he actually said most of the time.

Don't bother ... he already said " I'm simply giving my opinion,..." so it looked like your original proviso against pure opinion was ignored for his own reasons. Readers can conclude what they might be.

 

[sangha]

So, you accept the point that his stance on NATO, taken alone, does not show a Pro-Russia lean.

Just as I couldn't claim someone has a pro-GOP lean simply because they support lower taxes, we can't claim Trump is pro-Russia based on one position. The totality of one's positions and statements should be considered.

When you wrote the OP, I truly thought you were looking to discuss the issues honestly and realistically. It seems you were very serious about the "defense lawyer" part, and are trying to use any gambit to excuse Trump. Examining each individual statement and dismissing them one by one because no one statement proves a pro-russian lean is a cheap lawyers trick

I have also pointed out that his statement about "Ukraine" was about him vs. Obama when dealing with Russian aggression. When taken in context he was saying "Putin in Ukraine? Not if I am President." That is the opposite of support for Putin.

No, that is not what he said. He was clear - he said russia was not going to go into the Ukraine, even though they already have

Trump clearly condemns Russia if they did it, stating that they have no respect for our country.

Umm,no. He does not make any condemnation of Russia. When he says they have no respect for our country, it's because Obama is our president. IOW, he is condemning Obama, not Russia. According to Trump, Russia did what any nation would do when it doesn't respect another nation's leader. He offers no blame or condemnation for Russia

Listen to what he says and exactly how he says it. If you think he wasn't being sarcastic? Who is exhibiting the bias now?

So now it's sarcasm? Statement he *still* stands by are sarcasm?

You're exhibiting bias. Huge amounts of it

 

[Rogue Valley]

Either Trump is clueless about Ukraine...Or he is consciously parroting Kremlin propaganda. There's no 3rd choice.

 

[SHOOTER]

1) His policy of not defending all of our NATO allies
Donald Trump Says U.S. May Not Help NATO Allies If He Is President - Fortune

2) His condoning Russia's aggression in the Ukraine
Donald Trump says Vladimir Putin is 'not going to go into Ukraine,' despite Crimea - CNNPolitics.com

3) His willingness to allow the spread of nuclear weapons
9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons | ThinkProgress

4) His belief that NATO is obselete
9 Terrifying Things Donald Trump Has Publicly Said About Nuclear Weapons | ThinkProgress

5) His proposal to back only half of our national debt
Donald Trump Brings Back the Default Talk - The Atlantic

That's just off the top of my head

he is right on all accounts,although i do not thank he said that way,TRUMP is correct ,as for the nukes i am still laughing , ‎Judd Legum the hillary clinton liberal socialist democrat runs THANK PROGRESS,are you kidding me THANK PROGRESS they are not bias, surly not.

run don run

 

[Captain Adverse]

When you wrote the OP, I truly thought you were looking to discuss the issues honestly and realistically. It seems you were very serious about the "defense lawyer" part, and are trying to use any gambit to excuse Trump. Examining each individual statement and dismissing them one by one because no one statement proves a pro-russian lean is a cheap lawyers trick

Geez, of course I was being serious about the "defense lawyer" part. I was a defense lawyer.

I am also NOT using "any gambit to excuse Trump," I am using both your own citations and the actual evidence of his own statements presented in those citations to show that:

a. There is more than one way (i.e. the anti-Trump media way and the benefit of the doubt way) to view the facts and;

b. The evidence does not always agree with the public image being created by what is literally anti-Trump propaganda.

No, that is not what he said. He was clear - he said russia was not going to go into the Ukraine, even though they already have

Not the best way to interpret his remarks, which were quoted. Just the way you prefer to interpret them. Refer to item a. above. :shrug:

Umm,no. He does not make any condemnation of Russia. When he says they have no respect for our country, it's because Obama is our president. IOW, he is condemning Obama, not Russia. According to Trump, Russia did what any nation would do when it doesn't respect another nation's leader. He offers no blame or condemnation for Russia. So now it's sarcasm? Statement he *still* stands by are sarcasm?

Now who is being selective in their interpretation. The video shows exactly what he said, and exactly how he said it. My analysis is more honest then yours in this instance.

You're exhibiting bias. Huge amounts of it

(Sigh) I am acting as his DEFENSE ATTORNEY. Let me refer you to a post you may have overlooked:

First...where do I pretend to be neutral?

I am a Trump supporter (however reluctantly). Moreover, I posited this thread stating I was going to act as a defense attorney. You do realize that defense attorneys are not "neutral," that their job is to DEFEND their client?

The evidence is presented by the defense in the best light possible for the defendant. The idea is to stress giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

The hope is that by presenting the evidence in such a way, the judge/jury will try to see it that way also, despite their own pre-conceived notions and prejudices.

 

[sangha]

Geez, of course I was being serious about the "defense lawyer" part. I was a defense lawyer.

I am also NOT using "any gambit to excuse Trump," I am using both your own citations and the actual evidence of his own statements presented in those citations to show that:

a. There is more than one way (i.e. the anti-Trump media way and the benefit of the doubt way) to view the facts and;

b. The evidence does not always agree with the public image being created by what is literally anti-Trump propaganda.



Not the best way to interpret his remarks, which were quoted. Just the way you prefer to interpret them. Refer to item a. above. :shrug:



Now who is being selective in their interpretation. The video shows exactly what he said, and exactly how he said it. My analysis is more honest then yours in this instance.



(Sigh) I am acting as his DEFENSE ATTORNEY. Let me refer you to a post you may have overlooked:



The evidence is presented by the defense in the best light possible for the defendant. The idea is to stress giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

The hope is that by presenting the evidence in such a way, the judge/jury will try to see it that way also, despite their own pre-conceived notions and prejudices.

Arguing that no individual statement proves a pro-russian lean is intellectually dishonest. While viewing those statements in an intellectually dishonest way is "another way to look at it", it is still intellectually dishonest

It is revealing that you can't refute the arguments as they are actually presented to you and that you have to "interpret" meanings into Trumps words that don't exist. It shows that there really is no reasonable defense for his positions and his statements.

Even funnier is your admitting to acting like a defense lawyer (a position that requires bias) while condemning others for what you perceive is bias

 

[Captain Adverse]

Arguing that no individual statement proves a pro-russian lean is intellectually dishonest. While viewing those statements in an intellectually dishonest way is "another way to look at it", it is still intellectually dishonest

It is revealing that you can't refute the arguments as they are actually presented to you and that you have to "interpret" meanings into Trumps words that don't exist. It shows that there really is no reasonable defense for his positions and his statements.

Even funnier is your admitting to acting like a defense lawyer (a position that requires bias) while condemning others for what you perceive is bias

Sorry, but I did refute those arguments where the facts don't coincide with your belief system.

Let's take that false issue that he was asking the Russian's to hack Hillary. What are the facts?

Clinton and her lawyers handed over to the State Department 30,000 emails that they said were the business-related emails from her private system. The personal emails were deleted. But Comey said that in this process, it is "likely that there are other work-related emails that they did not produce ... that are now gone because they deleted all emails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices." The FBI could not recover these...Comey said there was no direct evidence Clinton's email was hacked, but other people she corresponded with were hacked, and her use of a private email system was well-known. She also used her email while traveling "in the territory of sophisticated adversaries." Thus, he said, "it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account."

The damning things the FBI said about Clinton's email

1. The 30,000 emails Trump referred to in his statement had been deleted from Hillary's server. Truth.
2. The FBI found evidence of the deletions, but could not recover them. Truth.
3. That it was possible, based on her usage and other evidence of hacking with those she corresponded with that her emails were hacked. Truth.

So according to the facts in evidence:

a. These emails were no longer available to be hacked at the time Trump made his statement. Even novice computer owners born in he last 30 years know that when you delete anything on a computer you are only erasing the address of the item, not actually erasing the data. This allows the data to be overwritten during subsequent usage of the memory space. However, that portion of memory is not automatically used first, or even completely This is why such information can be recovered. For it to be unrecoverable it would have to have been either scrubbed by a shred/scrub program, or overwritten completely due to low memory storage and constant new data entry use. That was what her lawyers did according to FBI Director Comey. And;

b. That there was a possibility that some party (maybe the Russians) had already hacked them before they were deleted.

The evidence shows that at worst, he was asking them to reveal something they had already hacked, NOT to continue hacking to see if they could find them.

When his statement is viewed in that light, combined with his prefacing remarks about what they did (if they did it) was wrong, he was making a sarcastic statement: If you did it and you've got them, then feel free to release them so our biased press can reward you.

However, you and others chose to take his statement literally. That he was asking Russia to hack her. The evidence CLEARLY shows that this was not in any way true.

Yet you continue to argue the opposite. That is where the bias actually lies...in your view of the facts.

 

[sangha]

Sorry, but I did refute those arguments where the facts don't coincide with your belief system.

No, you didn't. The argument is that his statements and positions as a whole demonstrate a lean to russia

Let's take that false issue that he was asking the Russian's to hack Hillary. What are the facts?

We aren't talking about that straw man. Once again, you are failing to address the actual argument

 

[Captain Adverse]

No, you didn't. The argument is that his statements and positions as a whole demonstrate a lean to russia


We aren't talking about that straw man. Once again, you are failing to address the actual argument

I did address it. I am pointing to facts in evidence in each allegation. Where facts support one of your listed positions, I freely acknowledge it. Where they did not, I pointed it out. In this case I did that clearly in my response to Glen Contrarian.

1. Trump did not ask Russia to hack Hillary.

2. Trump's position on NATO is finance based, not pro-Russia based.

3. Trump's comment about Ukraine was meant as a campaign comparison to what Obama has done (nothing) and what would be the case if Trump were President. It was not "condoning Russia in Ukraine."

4. There is no hard evidence of Trump ties to "Russian Oligarchs," just a lot of allegations that his business efforts make him "pro-Russia." Note: similar allegations have been raised about the Clinton's and blithely dismissed for the same reasons.

I provided all the evidence clearly and in the best light for the defendant. Asked to view the evidence in this clear light you persist in standing by the erroneous position that taken together this means Trump is Pro-Russia.

However, let's assume the worst light NOT supported by the evidence. I would like to point out this video:



Assuming Trump is seeking détente (rather than appeasement, which has not been proved) I think this argues in favor of his foreign affairs position. Seeking to work with one of the other two major world powers (the other being China) rather than trying to antagonize them and precipitate a new Cold (or Hot) war in Europe.

Either way, my position remains valid.

 

[sangha]

I did address it. I am pointing to facts in evidence in each allegation. Where facts support one of your listed positions, I freely acknowledge it. Where they did not, I pointed it out. In this case I did that clearly in my response to Glen Contrarian.

1. Trump did not ask Russia to hack Hillary.

2. Trump's position on NATO is finance based, not pro-Russia based.

3. Trump's comment about Ukraine was meant as a campaign comparison to what Obama has done (nothing) and what would be the case if Trump were President. It was not "condoning Russia in Ukraine."

4. There is no hard evidence of Trump ties to "Russian Oligarchs," just a lot of allegations that his business efforts make him "pro-Russia." Note: similar allegations have been raised about the Clinton's and blithely dismissed for the same reasons.

I provided all the evidence clearly and in the best light for the defendant. Asked to view the evidence in this clear light you persist in standing by the erroneous position that taken together this means Trump is Pro-Russia.

However, let's assume the worst light NOT supported by the evidence. I would like to point out this video:



Assuming Trump is seeking détente (rather than appeasement, which has not been proved) I think this argues in favor of his foreign affairs position. Seeking to work with one of the other two major world powers (the other being China) rather than trying to antagonize them and precipitate a new Cold (or Hot) war in Europe.

Either way, my position remains valid.

1) Straw man
2) His positions serves russia's interests, not ours
3) You're making stuff up. That's not what he said
4) I said nothing about any oligarchs, but there are russian businessmen with strong ties to the russian govt who have done business with Trump

All you did was confirm that it is impossible to defend Trump without engaging in the same sort of hysterical and unreasonable misrepresentations you decried in your OP