*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...ar-crimes.html

Making america great by openly supporting war criminals who execute kids! No, but wait, it's ok! The girl wore a hijab!

I'll repost this because I think it's important. That's the type of story that gets buried under the impeachment talks.

[TheSpoonald]

I'll repost this because I think it's important.

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

The military has a court martial process and it's own way of enforcing justice. That seems to be working as intended.

What exactly is your beef?

[oskar]

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

The military has a court martial process and it's own way of enforcing justice. That seems to be working as intended.

What exactly is your beef?

So you didn't read the story, or you think burying the case and threatening everyone who knows about it not to talk about it is "working as intended"

[Poopadoop]

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

Being in a warzone doesn't mean you get to indiscriminately shoot anyone walking around, little girls and old men included.

If his own men reported him, why do you think that is? They were democrats?

What exactly is your beef?

Did you see the Trump tweet?

[TheSpoonald]

I think I finally understand Oskar's point of view. This lays it out beautifully

[TheSpoonald]

I know you want 5 more minutes of Miles.....

[TheSpoonald]

Mueller has the power to say something is not solid, but adheres to DOJ policy against declaring something to be a solid.

He looks at ice and says "no finding" because he knows its a solid but can't say so.

He looks at water and says "not a solid" because he knows water is a liquid.

He can't determine if steam is a vapor or suspended solid particles, so he makes no finding.

By MMM logic steam = ice.

Or alternatively...

He rules that water is not a solid, makes no finding on steam, and by MMM logic that automatically means that steam is solid.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Mueller has the power to say something is not solid, but adheres to DOJ policy against declaring something to be a solid.

He looks at ice and says "no finding" because he knows its a solid but can't say so.

He looks at water and says "not a solid" because he knows water is a liquid.

He can't determine if steam is a vapor or suspended solid particles, so he makes no finding.

By MMM logic steam = ice.

Or alternatively...

He rules that water is not a solid, makes no finding on steam, and by MMM logic that automatically means that steam is solid.

lol
At least let me reply before you choke on your own foot.

[Poopadoop]

Let's try this in a way bananaspoon might understand:

You go to work and your boss asks you to evaluate some products and determine whether they're a solid investment for your company. But, he's a wanker and tells you "I don't want you to say 'yes' to any of these products 'cause my wife Mrs. Constitution will be upset if I let my accountant tell me to spend money."

Your report on product 1 says "no, don't invest."
Your report on product 2 says "here's the math i did. I'm not going to say 'no', but since by your rules I can't say 'yes', then you should ask someone else."

Edit: But before the report gets to him, it goes through your supervisor who tells everyone 'it's no all the way!'

[MadMojoMonkey]

Poop's on top of this.

Does it mean "guilty" on anything? No. Certainly not.
It's just a really... deeply... interesting pair of facts.

[TheSpoonald]

Dems wanted a clear cut case for impeachment that they could ride into 2020. they didn't get it.

Everything they have to say about the subject now is a losers temper tantrum

[MadMojoMonkey]

This blows my mind. After everything you've posted today, you're telling me you get this?

Ok...follow me now.......

if Mueller is handcuffed against saying Trump committed a crime......and collusion is not a crime.....then why can't Mueller say "Trump colluded"

Because Mueller was never investigating collusion, a legal activity.
Because Mueller knows that his job isn't to investigate people doing perfectly legal things.
Because Mueller isn't a stupid baby who think he needs to grandstand and say anyone did or didn't do a thing that is legal, so not his purview to comment on, anyway.

C'mon, man.
Nothing in the Mueller report has anything to do with collusion.
The MR talks about conspiracy, and (correct me if I'm wrong), those are the charges that the MR directly clears him on.


Anyone who mentions collusion is either ignorant or chasing ratings. I can forgive the ignorance once, but if it persists, then go back to the kiddie pool.

We're not talking about conspiracy, here, in FTR.
We're talking about the accusations of Obstruction of Justice that were not clearly and plainly stated in the MR as "not guilty."

We're talking about how you opened this conversation by saying the MR is a huge win for Trump, and how that's really not clear at all.

[TheSpoonald]

Because Mueller was never investigating collusion, a legal activity.

Yes he fucking was man. And I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Just go find the one-page document that outlines the purpose and scope of Mueller's investigation and tell me what it says. Show me where it says that Mueller is only allowed to investigate illegal activity.

Because Mueller knows that his job isn't to investigate people doing perfectly legal things.

Wrong

Because Mueller isn't a stupid baby who think he needs to grandstand and say anyone did or didn't do a thing that is legal, so not his purview to comment on, anyway.

It's exactly his purview. Again, please refer to Mueller's own instruction manual.

The MR talks about conspiracy, and (correct me if I'm wrong), those are the charges that the MR directly clears him on.

And that's not a win for Trump, how?

Anyone who mentions collusion is either ignorant or chasing ratings. I can forgive the ignorance once, but if it persists, then go back to the kiddie pool.

This is that trick where you try to pretend you're smarter than everyone else. Not falling for it. Fucking everybody knew this whole thing was about collusion.

We're talking about the accusations of Obstruction of Justice that were not clearly and plainly stated in the MR as "not guilty."

Why do those matter? Do they make a compelling case for impeachment? You realize that was the whole point of this right? You realize that anything short of that is a loss for dems, and a win for Trump. For fuck's sake man, we already knew about all of those things. If all Mueller's report says is "yeah, Trump asked McGahn to fire me, the news isn't all fake", how is that worth a drop of Trump's sweat?

We knew that Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller almost a year ago I think. Tell me why it suddenly matters more now because Mueller said "dunno"

We're talking about how you opened this conversation by saying the MR is a huge win for Trump, and how that's really not clear at all.

Explain to me what is in this report that was not previously public knowledge, that would turn off an independent voter who might otherwise vote for Trump. Clear win.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Yes he fucking was man. And I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Just go find the one-page document that outlines the purpose and scope of Mueller's investigation and tell me what it says. Show me where it says that Mueller is only allowed to investigate illegal activity.

Well, you can keep saying stupid, inconsequential things all day, but no one intelligent is going to agree with them.

And that's not a win for Trump, how?

Don't know or care. I don't like the guy, and I believe he's not done a remotely good job of supporting American interests on the world stage. I'm also sure that I'd be just as critical, but of different issues if Clinton had won.
The fact that you keep trying to paint me as having partisan interests is just folly. That's not me.

How is someone who's so good at poker so bad at reading me?

This is that trick where you try to pretend you're smarter than everyone else. Not falling for it. Fucking everybody knew this whole thing was about collusion.

Not everyone. Just you, on the question of whether the MR clears DJT of OoJ.
No, the media ratings-whores figured out that they could get a lot of ratings by throwing the word collusion around, and you and whatever meat heads you roll with bought a 12-pack of mouth-froth and went out looking for another idiot to argue with.

Go find other idiots who want to play the "ZOMG you said a thing that's on my list of things I get mad about" game.
It's fucking boring and it leads nowhere, but if you're still into it, then go for it.

Why do those matter? Do they make a compelling case for impeachment? You realize that was the whole point of this right? You realize that anything short of that is a loss for dems, and a win for Trump. For fuck's sake man, we already knew about all of those things. If all Mueller's report says is "yeah, Trump asked McGahn to fire me, the news isn't all fake", how is that worth a drop of Trump's sweat?

We knew that Trump asked McGahn to fire Mueller almost a year ago I think. Tell me why it suddenly matters more now because Mueller said "dunno"


Explain to me what is in this report that was not previously public knowledge, that would turn off an independent voter who might otherwise vote for Trump. Clear win.

*yawn*
Why are you telling me this?
Why are you assuming that I care in the slightest about any of this.
All I care about is you said a stupid thing, and you're generally pretty smart. All I cared about was showing you that the thing you thought the MR said is not what you thought it said.

So which is it? You here to engage in adult conversation about complex topics, or just spouting the same nonsense you heard from some mouth-frothing ratings whore as if you're educated about issues because you watched a TV person say politics things that you already thought were true?

[TheSpoonald]

*yawn*
Why are you telling me this?

I didn't tell you anything. I asked you questions.

Tell me why it suddenly matters more now because Mueller said "dunno"


Explain to me what is in this report that was not previously public knowledge, that would turn off an independent voter who might otherwise vote for Trump

[TheSpoonald]

Well, you can keep saying stupid, inconsequential things all day, but no one intelligent is going to agree with them.

Slow down there chuckles. Are you telling me that Mueller's scope was limited only to illegal activity? Is that what you believe?

The fact that you keep trying to paint me as having partisan interests is just folly.

I don't see where I've suggested you have partisan interests. I see your skepticism of Trump's victory on this to be folly. You don't have to like the guy to say that this report comes miles short of what Trump's opposition had hoped for.

How is someone who's so good at poker so bad at reading me?

Nah, it's a level. You're just bad at reading how good I am at reading you.

Not everyone... the media ratings-whores figured out that they could get a lot of ratings by throwing the word collusion around,

Google "Adam Schiff". If you're argument is that collusion was a diversion, it wasn't. I really don't know where you're getting that from.

All I care about is you said a stupid thing, and you're generally pretty smart. All I cared about was showing you that the thing you thought the MR said is not what you thought it said.

Does it or does it not say "We didn't even come close to satisfying the left's appetite for scandal"

It says that. Fucking read it.

So which is it? You here to engage in adult conversation about complex topics, or just spouting the same nonsense you heard from some mouth-frothing ratings whore as if you're educated about issues because you watched a TV person say politics things that you already thought were true?

You say "ratings whore" alot

[MadMojoMonkey]

Slow down there chuckles. Are you telling me that Mueller's scope was limited only to illegal activity? Is that what you believe?

He's "allowed" to investigate what his professional judgement leads him to believe is relevant to uncovering the allegations he's investigating.
His "job" is not to investigate people accused of doing legal things.

I don't see where I've suggested you have partisan interests. I see your skepticism of Trump's victory on this to be folly. You don't have to like the guy to say that this report comes miles short of what Trump's opposition had hoped for.

You've repeatedly said I have some expectation about what the MR should have said, or that it wasn't what I wanted it to be, or other assumptions based around me having a partisan interest in the public shaming of my president.
Who cares? If the opposition you refer to is, in fact, merely the subset which includes only the idiots of his opposition, then why do you even care? If you do care, do you actually think just berating them will change their minds?

Nah, it's a level. You're just bad at reading how good I am at reading you.

Google "Adam Schiff". If you're argument is that collusion was a diversion, it wasn't. I really don't know where you're getting that from.

Politician says hollow things to get attention.
Oh wow... I am so surprised.

You and I both know that collusion is not a crime. Anyone - ANYONE - who is puffing it up to be more than nothing, and who clearly knows better, is a charlatan playing off of people's emotional response to a buzz word. They cannot be talking about real legal issues with real legal consequences and talking about collusion at the same time. Those are different things.

Does it or does it not say "We didn't even come close to satisfying the left's appetite for scandal"

It says that. Fucking read it.

It does not. Except on the (is it 2?) allegations where it does, metaphorically speaking, say something that you probably mean with that ridiculous use of quotes.

I don't have the time or interest to read a 400 page legal document. Still, I'm pretty confident that what you put in quotes isn't in it.

You say "ratings whore" alot

I'm bitter about the lack of an unbiased American news outlet and the lack of fact-checking and journalistic integrity that is indicative thereof.
The fact that you're not is actually hard for me to take seriously, but there it is... over and over again.

[TheSpoonald]

They tried for three weeks with that grappling hook man. And the only part of that story that was debunked was that it was Navy Seals. It was actually just some regular infantry unit. Important distinction, but it's not like it was tested by incompetent boobs.

[TheSpoonald]

By the same token, I think single payer healthcare should be implemented tomorrow. Personally I think it would be horrible idea. I can think of a dozen completely sound arguments against it. But those are just my opinions, and that's all they'll ever be. America decided that single payer healthcare was a good idea in 2008, so that's what should happen.

[TheSpoonald]

It's funny that you accuse me of missing the point of things alot, but you think a viable argument against the wall is that it doesn't work.

that's not a viable argument.

Look, if the proposal was to put a shower curtain along the border, that's what we should do. Personally, I prefer a barrier that actually works, like fucking land mines. But if there was a nationwide election, and one candidate ran on a platform of a shower curtain, and won, then he has mandate to build that fucking shower curtain. You don't get to say it's dumb. You don't get to say it's ineffective. You don't get to say it costs too much. No one gets to say that except the American people. And they said they want the fucking wall. So build it. To do anything else is corrupt.

[Poopadoop]

None of them identify themselves as 'biased' afaik. They claim a particular 'perspective'. That's a much more neutral word, and they use it (or various synonyms) to give themselves credibility.

As you know, Fox calls itself 'fair and balanced'. If Fox (or MSNBC) changed their named from Fox News to Fox Propaganda Report with the tagline 'unfair and biased' then I'll accept that they are being open about their bias.

[TheSpoonald]

None of them identify themselves as 'biased' afaik. They claim a particular 'perspective'. That's a much more neutral word, and they use it (or various synonyms) to give themselves credibility.

As you know, Fox calls itself 'fair and balanced'. If Fox (or MSNBC) changed their named from Fox News to Fox Propaganda Report with the tagline 'unfair and biased' then I'll accept that they are being open about their bias.

Jesus man. I think you put too much cynicism on your cereal this morning.

I can't find the clip, but I know just in the last two weeks I saw Ben Shapiro on TV saying out loud "my podcast has a conservative bias"

No, there isn't a disclaimer at the beginning of every show saying "you might vote republican after this" but geez. If you find any news source that claims to be "right down the middle", get away from that news source. If you believe that such a news source exists...you're lost.

[Poopadoop]

Jesus man. I think you put too much cynicism on your cereal this morning.

Just explaining how the world works, grasshopper.

I can't find the clip, but I know just in the last two weeks I saw Ben Shapiro on TV saying out loud "my podcast has a conservative bias"

Out of all the thousands of words he's ever spoken on that podcast, you think saying that once is giving due warning?

No, there isn't a disclaimer at the beginning of every show saying "you might vote republican after this" but geez. If you find any news source that claims to be "right down the middle", get away from that news source.

That's the problem - they all claim at various times to be telling the unvarnished truth - that's as 'down the middle' as it gets.

If you believe that such a news source exists...you're lost.

There's a whole spectrum of bias out there, and there's a whole continuum of how much facts are presented and how much spin.

[Poopadoop]

The only reason to watch MSM news imo is to see what other people are being exposed to, and use that info to understand why they may believe the things they do.

[TheSpoonald]

I want Poop, MMM, and Oskar to just spell it out in plain english. Please just give straight answers to the following questions

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

[Poopadoop]

I want Poop, MMM, and Oskar to just spell it out in plain english. Please just give straight answers to the following questions

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think is the strongest?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonable expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

1. Trying to fire Mueller.
2. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller.
3. He tried to fire Mueller to stop the investigation or at least change it's direction.
4. I'd reasonably expect a frustrated grown up to suck it up and let things play out if he were innocent.

[TheSpoonald]

1. Trying to fire Mueller.

For the jillionth time...he didn't try to fire Mueller. If he actually tried, then Mueller would be fired. He thought about it, he might have even initiated the process. But it never went any further. Nothing actually happened. Thus....no crime. Oh and by the way...if Trump HAD fired Mueller, it's still not obstruction because the POTUS can fire the special counsel. That's in the rules. Following the rules can't ever possibly be a crime.

If that's really your best case for obstruction...you must be consuming some horribly biased news.

[Poopadoop]

For the jillionth time...he didn't try to fire Mueller. If he actually tried, then Mueller would be fired.

.. and attempted murder is ok if you miss your target, because if you'd REALLY intended to kill them, they'd be dead.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

2. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller.

and then subsequently ordering McGahn not to. You're clearly admitting that nothing actually happened. So I'm wondering how you can see a crime?

[Poopadoop]

and then subsequently ordering McGahn not to.

Only when McGahn threatened to resign.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

3. He tried to fire Mueller to stop the investigation or at least change it's direction.

No, that's you inferring intent. I asked you for evidence

[Poopadoop]

No, that's you inferring intent. I asked you for evidence

All of his statements saying 'arrrrghh witch hunt' etc. show he didn't want to be investigated, and so tried to interfere. Trying to fire Mueller is another piece of that evidence.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

4. I'd reasonably expect a frustrated grown up to suck it up and let things play out if he were innocent.

Are you fucking high?

[TheSpoonald]

Poop, I'm not going to be cruel and let you do this all day. Do yourself a favor, and find chapter and verse in the MR where it says that Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is a potential act of obstruction.

I want you to find that passage. I want you to prove to me that is what the MR report says.

Hint: it doesn't say that.

Mueller is FINE with Trump ordering McGahn to fire him. Mueller knows the rules, and he knows that's totally allowed. Nothing actually happened. So no crime. If something did happen, it's still not a crime because of the aforementioned rules.

Now....what Mueller actually said is that the potential obstruction lies in Trump's later attempts to prevent the public from knowing that he had ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. See the subtle difference?

I'll go over it again for you now......slowly.

Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller. McGahn said no. Trump said "yeah, ok, maybe you're right, don't fire him". None of that is in dispute. And none of that is illegal. None of that is improper. None of that is against the rules. No one, and I mean no one except YOU thinks that act represents anything close to Obstruction of Justice. Do you get that now? Please tell me you get that?

What Mueller claims might be obstruction-y is Trump's attempt to mislead the public about that story. Got that? Nothing about the actual story is bad. Nothing. It's the subsequent cover up that Mueller cites as a potential problem.

Mueller also complains about Trump's attempts to mislead the public about the Trump tower meeting. Still following me bud? Mueller found that absolutely nothing bad happened during the Trump Tower meeting. But Mueller says it was the subsequent cover up that was obstruction-y.

and while we're at it, let's talk about the accusation that Trump ordered Lewandowski to order Sessions to make a statement about how unfair the special counsel investigation is.

Those three incidents....3 of the 10 Mueller cited....all have the same answer.

IT'S NOT A CRIME TO LIE TO THE PRESS

Honestly now man, you can't be this stubborn. You have to admit now, that if Trump is actually guilty of obstruction on any of those 3 things that I just went over, then we need to build a barb wire fence around the entire District of Columbia and throw away the key.

[Poopadoop]

banana.jpg

Omg you are so fucking boring. Please just stop repeating the same things over and over again as if quantity of words somehow equals quality of thought. You're the living proof that it doesn't.

[Poopadoop]

Are you fucking high?

No.

Next.

[TheSpoonald]

Hey Oskar....

1) Of the 10 possible instances of obstruction cited in the MR, which do you think presents the strongest case for criminal activity?

2) What evidence of the act do you find compelling?

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

4) In the instance you chose, how does Trump's behavior differ from the behavior that you would reasonably expect from someone who is frustrated at being framed for treason by partisan operatives within his own executive branch

I asked Poop earlier, and in case you missed it, he made up an 11th choice that Mueller didn't even mention and cited that as the strongest case for criminal activity.

I'm wondering if you and your 113 IQ can be just a bit smarter

[TheSpoonald]

Fun question...

If Trump knew that Comey was a corrupt partisan working to undermine and ultimately remove the president from power by empowering and manipulating a sham investigation (i.e. obstructing justice), then would Trump be obstructing justice by letting it happen? Or would he be morally obligated to act?

[Poopadoop]

Why do you just keep saying the same things over and over again? I've heard your arguments, you've heard mine. Repeating them back and forth is pointless. Move on bud. Find something else to be wrong about.

[TheSpoonald]

hqdefault.jpg

[TheSpoonald]

Why do you just keep saying the same things over and over again?

I'm not. I spent yesterday telling you why ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is not a crime. Today, I"m changing it up and telling you another ffact....Mueller doesn't think it's a crime either.

And new business: Why do you think it is a crime when Mueller doesn't?

I've heard your arguments

And the cognitive dissonance almost broke your spleen.

, you've heard mine.

Maybe Mueller should hear yours. Sounds like you have some ideas he hasn't thought of.

Repeating them back and forth is pointless.

Repeat for me one more time why lying to the press is a crime? I must have missed when you said that part.

Move on bud. Find something else to be wrong about

"Shut up" he explained.

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 2: Trump didn't want Sessions to recuse himself

Question: Why would Trump hire Sessions in the first place if Sessions didn't have his full confidence? Of course Trump prefers his own guy. Why is that a crime?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 3: Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation

Question: Do you think it's even remotely possible that Trump actually believed that firing Comey would stop the investigation? Did Rosenstein's recommendation play any role here, or was it all Trump being a criminal? Also, is it possible that Comey's incompetence or corruption contributed to his own firing?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 4: Trump was angry about the appointment of a special counsel and expressed a desire to fire people

Question: Why are emotions crimes?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 5 Trump asked his former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski to tell Sessions to announce that the investigation was very unfair to him, and that he had done nothing wrong

Question: Why is lying to the press the same as obstructing justice?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 6: Trump was not publicly forthcoming about the Trump Tower Meeting.

Question: Why is lying to the press the same as obstructing justice?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 7: Trump continued to pressure Sessions to unrecuse himself.

Question: Why is it obstruction if you ask someone you like to do the job that you hired them to do? Mueller even quotes Trump on this:

“I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly”

Where is the obstruction?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 8: Trump didn’t want the public to know he had “directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. “

Question: Why is lying to the press the same as obstructing justice?

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 9: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over

Question: who commits a crime in front of 50 million twitter followers?

[Poopadoop]

Allegation 9: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over

Question: who commits a crime in front of 50 million twitter followers?

You're right, only a criminal retard would do that.

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 10: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.

Question: Why are Flynn and Manafort grouped together in one line item, but Cohen gets his own?

[Poopadoop]

Allegation 10: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.

Question: Why are Flynn and Manafort grouped together in one line item, but Cohen gets his own?

Is this a legal question or a clerical one?

[TheSpoonald]

Is this a legal question or a clerical one?

What you're saying here is that you don't have an answer to any of the questions. Which means that there is nowhere near enough evidence for any of those things to constitute a crime.

Tell me....how the fuck does a prosecutor accumulate ten pieces of evidence...but no charges. WTF!!??

[TheSpoonald]

Let's just go through all 10 charges of obstruction hmm? One at a time

Allegation 1: Trump obstructed justice by expressing to Comey his "hope" that things would go easy for Flynn.

Question: Why is "hoping" for something to happen an act of obstruction?

[Poopadoop]

So you think Trump's going to cruise to re-election huh? What's that based on?

[TheSpoonald]

So you think Trump's going to cruise to re-election huh? What's that based on?

flaccid opposition.

[Poopadoop]

flaccid opposition.

He's his own best opposition.

Anyone > Hillary will beat him imo. The only question is whether the Ds will put that up.

[TheSpoonald]

He's his own best opposition.

Anyone > Hillary will beat him imo. The only question is whether the Ds will put that up.

You already know who they have. Name someone

[Poopadoop]

You already know who they have. Name someone

All of them, with the possible exception of Warren.

Ask me the same question a few more times.

[oskar]

Since we're talking about the Mueller report, it is safe to assume I use it to describe russian election interference as it is described in the Mueller report.
Why would I define words for you? I'm not a dictionary.

[TheSpoonald]

Since we're talking about the Mueller report, it is safe to assume I use it to describe russian election interference as it is described in the Mueller report.
Why would I define words for you? I'm not a dictionary.

Fine...I'll ask a different way. What specific acts of interference are you talking about?

Fake news facebook ads?? The largest estimate I've ever heard on this is $130K in ad-buys. I know the CEO of google testified to congress that they sold $4k worth of ads. Almost $2B was spent between teh two candidates on the 2016 election. It doesn't count as interference if it's ineffective.

If you're talking about Podesta and DNC emails.....so what?

[oskar]

You think foreign countries should be allowed to buy ads for US political campaigns secretly as long as it doesn't exceed a certain value? How much do you think is reasonable?

[TheSpoonald]

You think foreign countries should be allowed to buy ads for US political campaigns secretly as long as it doesn't exceed a value of... how much do you think is reasonable?

No I don't think that. I'm just saying if it happens and has no effect, I'm not going to shit my pants over it.

The tech companies and FEC should get on top of that. I don't see what it has to do with Trump

[oskar]

The president is asking for leniency for someone who executed a kid. Given his history with muslims it sure looks like he doesn't think it's a big deal to execute kids as long as "these aren't people, these are animals"

[TheSpoonald]

The president is asking for leniency for someone who executed a kid.

Until you've been to war, shut up. Let the people who have been to war judge him.

[oskar]

Until you've been to war, shut up. Let the people who have been to war judge him.

Do you think it's ok to kill the children of your enemy in a war?

[TheSpoonald]

Do you think it's ok to kill the children of your enemy in a war?

Not enough information to make a determination

[Poopadoop]

Not enough information to make a determination

What a sad pussy of an answer.

[oskar]

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...081014660.html

This is not a new position by Trump. Children can be killed if they're children of the enemy.

[Poopadoop]

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes...081014660.html

This is not a new position by Trump. Children can be killed if they're children of the enemy.

Yup, because "brown children bad"

[oskar]

If you don't think election interference happened, something that is stated explicitly in the report, then I think it's pointless to talk about more nuanced matters.

[TheSpoonald]

If you don't think election interference happened, something that is stated explicitly in the report, then I think it's pointless to talk about more nuanced matters.

When did I say that I think that?

I think it happened. I just don't think it matters very much. And I don't think Trump had any part in it

[TheSpoonald]

If Trump is smart....which he is.....he'll tell all of his underlings to start taking the 5th and not cooperate with any congressional investigations.

They're not independent fact finding bodies. They're partisan weapons for witch hunting.

Remain silent

[Poopadoop]

If Trump is smart....which he is.....he'll tell all of his underlings to start taking the 5th and not cooperate with any congressional investigations.

They're not independent fact finding bodies. They're partisan weapons for witch hunting.

Remain silent

How did that work with McGahn, Cohen, Manafort, etc. -Not so good.

[TheSpoonald]

How did that work with McGahn, Cohen, Manafort, etc. -Not so good.

So far McGahn hasn't testified, so what are you talking about.

And it actually went great for Cohen. He was facing like 15-30 years for tax fraud and some kind of taxi medallion scam. Instead he told some gossip about Trump and got it all knocked down to 3.

And Manafort probably would have rolled if he had any gossip about Trump. But in actuality....they were only friends for like 5 minutes.