Thousands March In LA To Call For Trump’s Impeachment

[haymarket]

"same and rational", what a crock. You're just stymied by questions steeped in logic and fact that you can't answer or refuse to discuss.

No - I recognize mental delusion when it rears its ugly head.

And trying to set the stage for denial of the Russians activities or that Trump invited the Russians in is a willful mental delusion just like somebody believing they are Napoleon.

 

[Excon]

That is beyond absurd. If the actions of the Russians were not interference in our elections - what were they then?

What is beyond absurd is your reply and assertion that it was interference.


As previously stated.

There has been no determination of "interference" and there is no finding of interference in the report.​

The language used was "influence", as in, an attempt influence the opinions of the populace, not interference. (and we know they didn't go as far as assessing any impact and none has been found)
There is a difference, you should endeavor to learn it instead of making false assertions of interference, especially as it was made clear that there were "no hacking of the polling booths" and "no tinkering of the numbers".

While none of the agencies expressed certainty or near certainty, the NSA was only moderately confident in their assessment of Putin's involvment.
What does "moderately Confident" mean?

Moderate Confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

And not to mention that the whole assessment comes with the following disclaimer.

Estimative language consists of two elements: judgments about the likelihood of developments or events occurring and levels of confidence in the sources and analytic reasoning supporting the judgments. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, was well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.

There was no interference. They speak to possible attempts to influence, yet no attempt was made to assess any.

 

[haymarket]

What is beyond absurd is your reply and assertion that it was interference.


As previously stated.

There has been no determination of "interference" and there is no finding of interference in the report.​

The language used was "influence", as in, an attempt influence the opinions of the populace, not interference. (and we know they didn't go as far as assessing any impact and none has been found)
There is a difference, you should endeavor to learn it instead of making false assertions of interference, especially as it was made clear that there were "no hacking of the polling booths" and "no tinkering of the numbers".

While none of the agencies expressed certainty or near certainty, the NSA was only moderately confident in their assessment of Putin's involvment.
What does "moderately Confident" mean?



And not to mention that the whole assessment comes with the following disclaimer.


There was no interference. They speak to possible attempts to influence, yet no attempt was made to assess any.

You post proves the power of DENIAL in the face of reality willfully imposed because of ones extremist politics. Or perhaps you simply do not have the availability of a dictionary to explain what INTERFERENCE is?

 

[Lovebug]

TEA Party. They did march, and I heard the word "impeach" thrown about more often than I felt comfortable with. Yeah yeah, calm down, they did not have an impeachment march, but did they ever try everything in their power to find something to oust a sitting potus.

 

[fmw]

Thousands March In LA To Call For Trump’s Impeachment, yet, President Trump has never been formally investigated, indicted, and/or, convicted of any participating in any type of crime.

Lawmakers are highly unlikely to pursue an impeachment of President Donald Trump any time soon; especially if they have no real evidence of any wrongdoings!

We are a Nation of Laws, and so far, President Trump hasn't been convicted of breaking any laws, or violating the United States Constitution: Thousands March In LA To Call For Trump's Impeachment | HuffPost

... but we encourage sore losers, crybabies, paid protesters, liberals, progressives, illegal aliens and democrats who wants to, to geaux out and march and peacefully protest, but remember, do not riot, engage in looting activities, burn down buildings, do not block access to city streets, government buildings or private businesses, so that you don't end up getting arrested for violating the law, prosecuted, convicted, fined, or incarcerated.

"GEAUX TRUMP GEAUX"

GOD BLESS AMERICA,
fatuous1

Most people are followers rather than leaders. It is the way it is.

 

[Excon]

You post proves the power of DENIAL in the face of reality willfully imposed because of ones extremist politics. Or perhaps you simply do not have the availability of a dictionary to explain what INTERFERENCE is?

You are projecting again.
There was an attempt to influence which is what the "assessment" states. Not an attempt to interfere, let alone interference.

 

[haymarket]

You are projecting again.
There was an attempt to influence which is what the "assessment" states. Not an attempt to interfere, let alone interference.

The events of the past 48 hours prove you dead wrong - as wrong as wrong can be.

 

[Excon]

The events of the past 48 hours prove you dead wrong - as wrong as wrong can be.

iLOL
No they do not.
It is hilarious that you think so.

 

[haymarket]

iLOL
No they do not.
It is hilarious that you think so.

Almost any rational person not willfully delusional because of far right poisoning thinks so. I guess the public service being done by the Don Trump Jr. revelations is we have a firm line of demarcation between the politically sane and those who do not quite make it up to that standard.

 

[Excon]

Almost any rational person not willfully delusional because of far right poisoning thinks so. I guess the public service being done by the Don Trump Jr. revelations is we have a firm line of demarcation between the politically sane and those who do not quite make it up to that standard.

You are projecting and should pay closer attention to the language used.

The language of the assessment is "influence" and what was assessed is that it was an attempt.
At no point did they establish definitively that there was, as only two of the agencies involved only assessed a "high probability" and not the higher assessment of a "near certainty". And please note, none of that language establishes actual certainty. And as we also already know that assessment clearly stated that it was not "proof" or "fact". Duh!

Now on to your absurd take on the email exchange and follow-up meeting.
That is not proof of any collusion let alone Proof that Russia was involved.
That you do not understand these things is sad.

 

[haymarket]

You are projecting and should pay closer attention to the language used.

The language of the assessment is "influence" and what was assessed is that it was an attempt.
At no point did they establish definitively that there was, as only two of the agencies involved only assessed a "high probability" and not the higher assessment of a "near certainty". And please note, none of that language establishes actual certainty. And as we also already know that assessment clearly stated that it was not "proof" or "fact". Duh!

Now on to your absurd take on the email exchange and follow-up meeting.
That is not proof of any collusion let alone Proof that Russia was involved.
That you do not understand these things is sad.

I have a line which separates the rational from the delusional... in this case the willfully delusional. You have crossed it.

 

[Excon]

I have a line which separates the rational from the delusional... in this case the willfully delusional. You have crossed it.

You are projecting again.

 

[haymarket]

You are projecting again.

Identifying disfunction in those who deny reality is not projecting.... it is nailing them to the damn wall.

 

[Excon]

Identifying disfunction in those who deny reality is not projecting.... it is nailing them to the damn wall.

You are still projecting while nailing yourself to a wall with the delusional postings. iLOL

 

[haymarket]

You are still projecting while nailing yourself to a wall with the delusional postings. iLOL

The one with delusions in this exchange has already been identified and its not me.

How can anyone deny the events of the past 48 hours giving us the proof of collusion that the right have been foaming at the mouth screaming and demanding for these many months? Willful delusion.... denial ..... deceit ..... deception .... those are the explanations of the refusal to accept reality.

 

[katzgar]

Thousands March In LA To Call For Trump’s Impeachment, yet, President Trump has never been formally investigated, indicted, and/or, convicted of any participating in any type of crime.

Lawmakers are highly unlikely to pursue an impeachment of President Donald Trump any time soon; especially if they have no real evidence of any wrongdoings!

We are a Nation of Laws, and so far, President Trump hasn't been convicted of breaking any laws, or violating the United States Constitution: Thousands March In LA To Call For Trump's Impeachment | HuffPost

... but we encourage sore losers, crybabies, paid protesters, liberals, progressives, illegal aliens and democrats who wants to, to geaux out and march and peacefully protest, but remember, do not riot, engage in looting activities, burn down buildings, do not block access to city streets, government buildings or private businesses, so that you don't end up getting arrested for violating the law, prosecuted, convicted, fined, or incarcerated.

"GEAUX TRUMP GEAUX"

GOD BLESS AMERICA,
fatuous1

Nixon was never accused formally of a crime Nixon was never convicted of a crime and yet he resigned you are living in a bubble

 

[Excon]

The one with delusions in this exchange has already been identified and its not me.

No, it has already been established that it is you.
If you truly do not think so, please point out in the assessment where the the word "interference" was used and where they actually concluded it with certainty.
Like I said, you should pay closer attention to the language used, if you had you wouldn't be so wrong.

How can anyone deny the events of the past 48 hours giving us the proof of collusion that the right have been foaming at the mouth screaming and demanding for these many months? Willful delusion.... denial ..... deceit ..... deception .... those are the explanations of the refusal to accept reality.

iLOL
No one denies what Jr. revealed, only your delusional interpretation of it. Duh!

 

[haymarket]

No, it has already been established that it is you.

Normally, such a well thought out fact filled detailed response would have taken you a lot more time than that. :doh:roll:

If you truly do not think so, please point out in the assessment where the the word "interference" was used and where they actually concluded it with certainty.

Why are you so hung up on the word INTERFERENCE and if it was used in the intelligence report or not? They described the Russian actvities in the US election where they clearly do not belong involved in. That is the dictionary definition of INTERFERE.

in·ter·fere
ˌin(t)ərˈfir/Submit
verb
1.
prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.
"a job would interfere with his studies"
synonyms: impede, obstruct, stand in the way of, hinder, inhibit, restrict, constrain, hamper, handicap, cramp, check, block; More
2.
take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.
"she tried not to interfere in her children's lives"
synonyms: butt into, barge into, pry into, intrude into, intervene in, get involved in, encroach on, impinge on; More

If I say the jury found Charles Manson guilty of heinous acts of despicable evil - would you then come back and say.."no - they only found him GUILTY and said nothing else"?

That would be incredibly inane and that is exactly what you are doing in pretending that the findings of the intelligence community report does not amount to Russian interference.

read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

 

[Excon]

Normally, such a well thought out fact filled detailed response would have taken you a lot more time than that.

And again.

No, it has already been established that it is you.
If you truly do not think so, please point out in the assessment where the the word "interference" was used and where they actually concluded it with certainty.
Like I said, you should pay closer attention to the language used, if you had you wouldn't be so wrong.​

 

[haymarket]

And again.

No, it has already been established that it is you.
If you truly do not think so, please point out in the assessment where the the word "interference" was used and where they actually concluded it with certainty.
Like I said, you should pay closer attention to the language used, if you had you wouldn't be so wrong.​

I was editing my post to provide that answer for you. Go back and read it.

 

[Excon]

I was editing my post to provide that answer for you. Go back and read it.

I have since read your further comment. It is irrelevant.
Now try addressing what was actually said.

Again.

No, it has already been established that it is you.
If you truly do not think so, please point out in the assessment where the the word "interference" was used and where they actually concluded it with certainty.
Like I said, you should pay closer attention to the language used, if you had you wouldn't be so wrong.​

Never mind. Anyone familiar with the assessment knows you cannot point to anything in the assessment being a definitive or using the word "interference".

 

[haymarket]

I have since read your further comment. It is irrelevant.
Now try addressing what was actually said.

Again.

No, it has already been established that it is you.
If you truly do not think so, please point out in the assessment where the the word "interference" was used and where they actually concluded it with certainty.
Like I said, you should pay closer attention to the language used, if you had you wouldn't be so wrong.​

Never mind. Anyone familiar with the assessment knows you cannot point to anything in the assessment being a definitive or using the word "interference".

You are being intentionally obtuse in the extreme. The report itself does not have to use the exact term interfere to describe the activities that are by definition interference.

To pretend otherwise gets back to the willfully delusional and not being sane or rational that I said was in evidence of such denial earlier.

Although - maybe you can build a case using the definition provided by me. Is it your opinion that the Russians could not by definition INTERFERE in our election since the definition says that is involvement without invitation and in this case the Russians were invited to do so by Trump very publicly?

2.
take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.

Is it your view that since Trump invited the Russians, what they did is not by definition INTERFERENCE?

 

[Excon]

You are being intentionally obtuse in the extreme. The report itself does not have to use the exact term interfere to describe the activities that are by definition interference.

To pretend otherwise gets back to the willfully delusional and not being sane or rational that I said was in evidence of such denial earlier.

Oy vey! Now we are back to the beginning.
Learn the difference between the two words.


Again.

What is beyond absurd is your reply and assertion that it was interference.


As previously stated.

There has been no determination of "interference" and there is no finding of interference in the report.​

The language used was "influence", as in, an attempt influence the opinions of the populace, not interference. (and we know they didn't go as far as assessing any impact and none has been found)
There is a difference, you should endeavor to learn it instead of making false assertions of interference, especially as it was made clear that there were "no hacking of the polling booths" and "no tinkering of the numbers".

While none of the agencies expressed certainty or near certainty, the NSA was only moderately confident in their assessment of Putin's involvment.
What does "moderately Confident" mean?

Moderate Confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.

And not to mention that the whole assessment comes with the following disclaimer.

Estimative language consists of two elements: judgments about the likelihood of developments or events occurring and levels of confidence in the sources and analytic reasoning supporting the judgments. Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, was well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.

There was no interference. They speak to possible attempts to influence, yet no attempt was made to assess any.

Attempting to influence (the people) is not interference or attempting to interfere.
Interference in the election would require a disruption in the election process, there was none.
What do you not understand about that?

 

[calamity]

Oy vey! Now we are back to the beginning.
Learn the difference between the two words.


Again.

​

Attempting to influence (the people) is not interference or attempting to interfere.
Interference in the election would require a disruption in the election process, there was none.
What do you not understand about that?

:roll:

 

[haymarket]

Oy vey! Now we are back to the beginning.
Learn the difference between the two words.


Again.

​

Attempting to influence (the people) is not interference or attempting to interfere.
?

A foreign power involving itself into our election as Russia did is the textbook definition of INTERFERENCE.

Are you talking the position that since Trump invited the Russians it cannot be interference?

INTERFERE
2.
take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity.

Interference in the election would require a disruption in the election process, there was none.
What do you not understand about that

Where are you getting this claim from?

And how does Trump invoking the Russian wikileaks material over 140 times NOT constitute a disruption in the process because that is exactly what it did?