Snopes is Utter Crap/Kamala Harris is Likely Descended from Slave Owners.

[egghead]

7 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

She is a Jewish?

it is the libs version of "you can be anyone you want to be." You can be man, woman, black, native ....

[WestCanMan]

On 7/19/2019 at 8:17 AM, BubberMiley said:

Your argument would be better if you were able to corroborate her dad's story yourself. Why not give it a try? You can get ancestry.com on most public library computers. Find a census entry or birth or baptismal certificate that confirms it.

Of course you won't because you know people already tried and failed. So instead you try and pretend they're all just biased socialists. It's a stupid, boring way to debate, but I guess it fools the dumb people you want to fool.

Such a trash post. 

Why should I go to ancestry.com and create a paid account just because you don't trust Kamala Harris's own father just to suit you? He has no reason to lie just to make his own family look bad.

And FYI Harris's ancestry doesn't have to be 100% verified fact in order for this to be a story worth reporting on. 

Here's athought Bubber: try taking the set of standards that you're trying to impose on me and now use them on your Dem heroes, the FBI and CNN. They were stating UNEQUIVOCALLY for over two years that they HAD EVIDENCE that Trump colluded with Russia. Now we all know that not even the FBI has evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. We just all know that Hillary colluded with Russia. 

You stick up for your people when they're caught in an outright lie and you make unsubstantiated accusations against people who you know are not lying. 

[WestCanMan]

On 7/19/2019 at 7:51 AM, BubberMiley said:

How does someone complain about the "hate of the left" while criticizing an objective site that reports on verifiable facts while completely ignoring this openly hateful diatribe?

The lack of self-awareness is astounding. 

Objective? I just disproved that entirely. Start again.

[WestCanMan]

On 7/19/2019 at 7:01 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Exactly.  The new right hates objectivity.

If you had some evidence of that then no doubt you would have thrown down. This is just another unsubstantiated accusation from a leftist (untrue as usual). Nothing new to see here.

[WestCanMan]

On 7/19/2019 at 7:37 AM, QuebecOverCanada said:

I know AOC isn't jewish, just as Kamala the rich laywer Harris has nothing to do with slavery. Is she even Black?

A person's skin colour doesn't offer any sort of proof as to whether or not their ancestors were slave owners.

[WestCanMan]

On 7/19/2019 at 8:30 AM, Queenmandy85 said:

Representative Harris' pedigree is irrelevant just as the allegation that the President's grand father ran a whorehouse in the Yukon. A person's actions are the only basis for assessment, not who their parents were. 

Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but we're talking about a person whose career is built around being a SJW.

Now it turns out that the people whom she looks down on as "oppressors" were much finer people than her own ancestors.

[BubberMiley]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

Such a trash post. 

Why should I go to ancestry.com and create a paid account just because you don't trust Kamala Harris's own father just to suit you? He has no reason to lie just to make his own family look bad.

And FYI Harris's ancestry doesn't have to be 100% verified fact in order for this to be a story worth reporting on. 

Here's athought Bubber: try taking the set of standards that you're trying to impose on me and now use them on your Dem heroes, the FBI and CNN. They were stating UNEQUIVOCALLY for over two years that they HAD EVIDENCE that Trump colluded with Russia. Now we all know that not even the FBI has evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. We just all know that Hillary colluded with Russia. 

You stick up for your people when they're caught in an outright lie and you make unsubstantiated accusations against people who you know are not lying. 

When did they state they unequivocally had evidence? Please show me the link. I know you won't because they didn't. At which point your whole argument,  once again,  falls apart.

Good job!

[BubberMiley]

But once again, snopes is in the business of verifying verifiable facts. You had a tantrum because you misunderstood what that means and you wanted them to verify something they and YOU can't verify. Someone's account is not proof. DNA evidence, like Warren produced regarding her ancestry, is proof. I'm sorry you had to find out this way 

Edited July 27, 2019 by BubberMiley

[Michael Hardner]

44 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

  I'm sorry you had to find out this way 

This is one of the most objective sites out there, and people who hate it have an agenda or don't value objectivity, period.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

And FYI Harris's ancestry doesn't have to be 100% verified fact in order for this to be a story worth reporting on. 

Facts don't matter to you? Well colour me surprised.

[Queenmandy85]

9 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Under normal circumstances I'd agree, but we're talking about a person whose career is built around being a SJW.

Now it turns out that the people whom she looks down on as "oppressors" were much finer people than her own ancestors.

Who cares?

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Who cares?

Now, apparently, we can demand people remove themselves from discussions based on their ancestors.

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

When did they state they unequivocally had evidence? Please show me the link. I know you won't because they didn't. At which point your whole argument,  once again,  falls apart.

Good job!

LMAO. Now you're trying to say that you're unaware of anyone ever saying the words "Trump colluded with Russia"? Do you think that they were saying "Trump allegedly colluded with Russia" this whole time? You're telling me now that you and others here were all waiting for the evidence to roll in before you jumped to any conclusions? You don't think that people here were talking about arrests that were made during the investigation as if they had something to do with collusion? 

Talk about an argument falling apart Bubber. That's a lie on top of a lie on top of a lie on top of a lie.

[WestCanMan]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/14/adam-schiff-there-ample-evidence-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/336786002/

for Bubber

[BubberMiley]

43 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/14/adam-schiff-there-ample-evidence-collusion-between-trump-campaign-russians/336786002/

for Bubber

He makes an excellent point that if you want to blind yourself, look the other way. But I have seen no evidence that Schiff is incorrect in his assessment. Mueller has stated clearly that he is hamstrung by Barr's refusal to prosecute a sitting president.

But to the point, are you saying USA Today should have not reported on his remarks as they did here? Is that really your argument?

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, eyeball said:

Facts don't matter to you? Well colour me surprised.

Yes, they matter quite a bit more to me than they do to every single Liberal/Democrat on earth.

For example: I have never said in no uncertain terms that "Trump colluded with Russia". I would wait for at least some undeniable and verified evidence before I would consider such a statement.

Here's the deal - it's perfectly legitimate to run a story that says "Kamala Harris's father, a Professor at [wherever], said that his great grandmother was a slave owner and was against abolition". That story 100% accurate whether or not her father was right. It doesn't overstate the likelihood of whether or not it's true. The reader can choose whether or not to believe it, or how much consideration to give it.

It's incredibly stupid to join the club that says "If you can't find proof on ancestry.com then it's just a fake story that's not worth reporting on" because if they can't say definitively who her ancestors actually were, or weren't, then that's just proof that her records don't actually exist and all we have to go on is her family's own word. And her dad wasn't claiming something unlikely or worth bragging about. He was admitting to something that's unpopular. Not many people lie to make their family look bad.

This is all just basic, solid logic, and undenied facts. Facts that matter. 

In conclusion, I'll say that people who deem sites that report on this story to just be "alt-right propaganda factories" are actually propagandists themselves.

/debate 

[WestCanMan]

12 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Who cares?

Honest people do.

She needs to back down from her stance that "other people were bad and I'm 100% pure".

 

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

He makes an excellent point that if you want to blind yourself, look the other way. But I have seen no evidence that Schiff is incorrect in his assessment. Mueller has stated clearly that he is hamstrung by Barr's refusal to prosecute a sitting president.

But to the point, are you saying USA Today should have not reported on his remarks as they did here? Is that really your argument?

My argument is that people have been saying "Trump colluded with Russia" for over 2 years and no one has ever provided credible evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Schiff has stated on multiple occasions that Trump was close to impeachment. 

No one is saying that Trump would be prosecuted for colluding with Russia. No one. People are saying that he could be prosecuted for obstructing justice by talking about firing Mueller. But now that we've all see how grossly incompetent Mueller is it's ridiculous to say that Trump had no grounds. Trump impeachment is still a farce.

As of this second, anyone who has ever said "Trump colluded with Russia" is a outright liar and even if it is eventually proven true that doesn't change anything because there is overwhelming evidence right now that he didn't collude with Russia. That being a 2+ year FBI investigation which produced no evidence. No one "knows" that Trump colluded with Russia, period.

[Queenmandy85]

16 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Honest people do.

She needs to back down from her stance that "other people were bad and I'm 100% pure".

 

You make her sound like the way people describe President Trump.

As it is, I believe I have a better chance of becoming POTUS than she does, and I was born in Canada.

[BubberMiley]

10 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

My argument is that people have been saying "Trump colluded with Russia" for over 2 years and no one has ever provided credible evidence that Trump colluded with Russia. Schiff has stated on multiple occasions that Trump was close to impeachment. 

No one is saying that Trump would be prosecuted for colluding with Russia. No one. People are saying that he could be prosecuted for obstructing justice by talking about firing Mueller. But now that we've all see how grossly incompetent Mueller is it's ridiculous to say that Trump had no grounds. Trump impeachment is still a farce.

As of this second, anyone who has ever said "Trump colluded with Russia" is a outright liar and even if it is eventually proven true that doesn't change anything because there is overwhelming evidence right now that he didn't collude with Russia. That being a 2+ year FBI investigation which produced no evidence. No one "knows" that Trump colluded with Russia, period.

Schiff has seen a lot of evidence that you have not seen, so I would take his word for it over yours.

But why do you think Trump denied the evidence that Russia was trying to hack the election during his debate with Hillary, and blamed it instead on China or a fat guy in his basement? 

Why did so many people on his campaign team lie about their contacts with Russia? 

There is ample evidence of obstruction of justice. What were they obstructing?

But regardless, again, you can't provide one example of the media reporting that Trump colluded, as you said they did. You only found one article reporting on Schiff's words (which BTW no one has proven to be false).

[Yzermandius19]

10 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Schiff has seen a lot of evidence that you have not seen, so I would take his word for it over yours.

But why do you think Trump denied the evidence that Russia was trying to hack the election during his debate with Hillary, and blamed it instead on China or a fat guy in his basement? 

Why did so many people on his campaign team lie about their contacts with Russia? 

There is ample evidence of obstruction of justice. What were they obstructing?

But regardless, again, you can't provide one example of the media reporting that Trump colluded, as you said they did. You only found one article reporting on Schiff's words (which BTW no one has proven to be false).

Why would you take the word of politician who can hide behind plausible deniability and who it benefits to lie about Trump? Do you automatically trust anyone who paints Trump in a negative light?

If you'll recall, before they lost the election, it was the Democrats who were claiming that claims of election interference were just paranoid conspiracy theories from the pro-Trump crowd, and how dare they call the election results into question. Then when they lost, they do a complete 180 and say the only way Trump could have won is by election interference.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Queenmandy85]

Deleted to corroborate assertion.

Edited July 29, 2019 by Queenmandy85

[BubberMiley]

7 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Why would you take the word of politician who can hide behind plausible deniability and who it benefits to lie about Trump? Do you automatically trust anyone who paints Trump in a negative light?

If you'll recall, before they lost the election, it was the Democrats who were claiming that claims of election interference were just paranoid conspiracy theories from the pro-Trump crowd, and how dare they call the election results into question. Then when they lost, they do a complete 180 and say the only way Trump could have won is by election interference.

It's true that Trump was trying to set the stage to declare the election invalid. He was probably surprised the Russian efforts were successful. But you can't answer the simple question of why he was trying to get the heat off Russia during the debate?

As for Schiff, you said the media was wrong to report his words. Now you're saying something entirely different. Could you at least stick to a debating point and follow it through?

[eyeball]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Yes, they matter quite a bit more to me than they do to every single Liberal/Democrat on earth.

For example: I have never said in no uncertain terms that "Trump colluded with Russia". I would wait for at least some undeniable and verified evidence before I would consider such a statement.

I was recalling the uncertain terms you used to denounce Charles Koch and his CATO Institute as CNN stooges. You didn't wait very long or spend much time verifying that statement before blurting it out.

[Boges]

Anything that challenges a Conservative Worldview is immediately Liberal Fake News. 

The idea that Google is Left-Wing is also hilarious. Just because they don't give equal weight to InfoWars and the New York Times.