Reply With Quote
This thread is about Shep Smith apparently "destroying" the Uranium One conspiracy. I brought up the facts he conveniently failed to mention and no one here wants to discuss them. I am not the one stalling ITT.
Sounds a lot like why you won't explain why you keep referring to sexual assault victims/accusers as lying s. When in Rome.
This thread is about Shep Smith apparently "destroying" the Uranium One conspiracy. I brought up the facts he conveniently failed to mention and no one here wants to discuss them. I am not the one stalling ITT.
I said the things he didn't bring up weren't important.
You don't want to discuss why you think they are important because that would mean you'd have to commit to a conspiracy theory.
Why don't you want to discuss things you think are important?
Something something Clintons are evil something something where's there smoke there must be fire something something so let me produce some more smoke
gonna be a long night, boys
better order some pizza
Your practice, not theory, is swallow whatever fabricated, debunked, false-outrage, deflecting, WhatAboutism LIES as unchallengeable truths that you defend with 100s of msgs in dozens of threads.
Interesting.
$500,000 speaking fee Bill Clinton received by a Russian investment bank that was promoting Uranium One
FBI kept top law enforcement officials and members of the committee in the dark despite an ongoing criminal investigation in the United States
Uranium One Chairman's donated 2.35 million to the Clinton Foundation while Clinton was secretary of state, and Clinton tried to hide the donation
Uranium One did in fact export uranium outside of the United States
None of this is important concerning the Uranium One story is that correct Chumpdumper?
the ing irony
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
Another inane question that has already been asked and answered.
If you think they're important, you're going to have to explain why you think they are important.
Everyone now knows you will not do that.
You will not start a Uranium One thread.
You will not commit to a Uranium One conspiracy theory.
You will bring up Uranium One only as a distraction in Trump/Russia threads.
This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.
Will you post your Uranium One conspiracy theory?
Yes or no.
Let me help you out here.
I will show you an example of a testable, coherent, falsifiable theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But then, predicting what Trump will, or won't do is sort of a mugs game. He never fails to do the stupidest possible, just when you think he can't be dumber.
The thing about a good theory though, it that it both explains facts, and you can make testable predictions.
Fact 1:
Russia attempted to hack our electoral process through a multi-pronged attack.
Fact 2:
Donald "look how big my inauguration crowd was" Trump has done nothing but deny this even happened. He has shown no willingness whatsoever to hold Russia to account for anything.
Fact 3:
Donald Trump has a pattern of criticizing anyone, and everyone at the drop of a hat. Allies, enemies, courts, free press, nothing has escaped his remarks and twitter feed, except for ONE/(two) thing(s), and that is Russia/Putin
Fact 4:
Russian efforts appeared designed to support Trump
Fact 5:
Trump directly called on Russia publicly to support his efforts to get elected.
Fact 6:
Donald Trump has gone out of his way to meet and talk with Putin privately in person, with no American witnesses. This is the only leader with which he has acted in this manner.
Fact 7:
Donald Trump, when forced to sign a bipartisan sanctions bill passed with a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress, issued a signing statement saying most of it was uncons utional, and that his administration would enforce it as little as possible.
Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.
This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.
Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.
The way to falsify the theory:
1) Trump criticizes Putin/Russia (good)
2) Trump orders/takes action that materially harms Russian interests (definitive)
Bull conspiracy theories fail very often because either: they cannot be falsified, or they directly conflict with observed reality. This theory can be falsified, and does not conflict with what we know as fact.
Donald Trump is unpredictable except for Russia.
He may be stupid enough to fire Mueller if Mueller starts asking questions that will expose how he has been compromised.
If he does so, he will be impeached. The Republican party will have almost no choice at that point. Congress will find their spine, because they want to be re-elected, and Trump will have gone too far for all but the most jaded hacks
Theory:
Donald Trump has been compromised in some way. Either he directly owes them money, or they have evidence of some kind of him breaking the law or doing something he does not want others to know about.
This theory explains those facts, and is fully consistent with observed reality.
Prediction:
Donald Trump will take no action personally, nor will he criticize Russia or Putin in any way in regards to the Russian attack on our elections. He may allow his underlings to do some minor, inconsequential stuff, and if forced to do anything by Congress will drag his feet, if not outright attempt to veto any sanctions.
That is a coherent, testable theory, that can be used to predict actions and behavior if true.
It takes a modest amount of thought. But is separates bull nutbaggery from something that might merit consideration from any decent skeptic.
Why do you think these facts are not important to the story?
I think they are important as it appears to be quid pro quo. I also think much more is to be learned from the testimony of the undercover FBI informant who said he has proof of quid pro quo.
I already started a Uranium One thread before this thread existed and probably have started more than one.
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
Stop spamming your Trump theory in this thread please. If you don't want to discuss the facts that Shep Smith omitted during his segment just leave. Thanks.
The facts Shep brought up were adequate showing a quid pro quo was pretty near impossible considering Clinton's non-role in an inter-agency commission.
Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?I think they are important as it appears to be quid pro quo. I also think much more is to be learned from the testimony of the undercover FBI informant who said he has proof of quid pro quo.
I already started a Uranium One thread before this thread existed and probably have started more than one.
Yes or no.
That doesn't look like a coherent, testable theory.
Conspiracy theorists fail to provide coherent, testable theories, because they are idiots.
It was merely an example for you of what a theory might look like. It appears you need help doing that.
And her "non-role" was confirmed by who?
I think discussing the deal without committing to a theory is adequate.Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?
Yes or no.
Show her role in your conspiracy theory. Prove her role. Your burden of proof.
This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.I think discussing the deal without committing to a theory is adequate.
Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?
Yes or no.
I never claimed she had a role so I don't have to prove anything. You brought up her "non-role" so I just want to know where that was confirmed and by who. So who confirmed her "non-role"?
Yes.This doesn't look like an answer to a yes or no question.
Are you going to post your Uranium One theory?
Yes or no.
The American public has been misled concerning the Uranium One deal.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions