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?
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.
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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?
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Nah, it's a level. You're just bad at reading how good I am at reading you.
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
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.
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.
Ok....you really need to let go of the idea that Mueller was exclusively limited to some kind of law-enforcement function. He wasn't. His job was to tell us what happened. For the fifth time now....go look up his exact instructions. Tell me where it specifies "crimes" or "illegal activity"
You seem to think that collusion is a diversion. It isn't. It's a real concern that people really had for real reasons other than just ratings. It doesn't have to be a crime to matter.
Even I can admit that Trump should not be president if he made discreet deals with foreign leaders to win an election. It might not be a crime, but it would be so supremely dumb that it disqualifies him from having the job. You seem to think that the legal standards matter here, or that Mueller's job was to find something criminal, or impeachable, or whatever. You're wrong. Collusion was a real concern. And if the MR uncovered such behavior, even if it wasn't a crime, it would be devastating for Trump, and rightly so.
This whole thing was born because people truly believed that Trump made an illicit deal with the Russians, not necessarily because anyone cared that he committed a crime.
If Trump was throwing watermelons off the white house roof, you'd wanna know that too. It's not a crime. But it does mean he can't be president.
Ok....you really need to let go of the idea that Mueller was exclusively limited to some kind of law-enforcement function. He wasn't. His job was to tell us what happened. For the fifth time now....go look up his exact instructions. Tell me where it specifies "crimes" or "illegal activity"
law, law, law, legal, legal, legal, law, law, law, legal, legal, legal....
What do you think that means?
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
You seem to think that collusion is a diversion. It isn't. It's a real concern that people really had for real reasons other than just ratings. It doesn't have to be a crime to matter.
Yes. How silly of me to believe what every lawyer who understands this corner of law agrees with.
You're the one who swallowed the media pabulum into believing that collusion is anything but a diversion and distraction.
Your assertion that a law agency was tasked to investigate legal activities is not a very smart position to hold.
Conspiracy is a crime. Any evidence that Trump colluded is inconsequential. If whatever he did falls below the threshold of criminal behavior, then there shouldn't be any bearing on this presidency. If he committed acts of conspiracy, then that's the opposite.
The MR cleared him of all counts of conspiracy, so fine. dead end.
However, during the course of the investigation, there's a lot of appearances of OoJ going on... and the MR plainly does not clear him of those apparent crimes.
Whether or not his polling is affected is a political matter, not a legal one. Whether or not he gets re-elected is a political matter, not a legal one.
You can talk political prognostication all you like, but it's just hot air. If we're talking legal facts on the ground, then that's another matter.
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
Even I can admit that Trump should not be president if he made discreet deals with foreign leaders to win an election. It might not be a crime, but it would be so supremely dumb that it disqualifies him from having the job. You seem to think that the legal standards matter here, or that Mueller's job was to find something criminal, or impeachable, or whatever. You're wrong. Collusion was a real concern. And if the MR uncovered such behavior, even if it wasn't a crime, it would be devastating for Trump, and rightly so.
Funny how all those people being all ragey about collusion never once accused him of conspiracy... which bears similarities to collusion, but which, importantly, is a crime.
Spoiler:
Conspiracy is a crime. Collusion is not.
You want to be all ragey at people who play the ragey game, then that's your real angle, IMO.
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
This whole thing was born because people some mouth-frothing idiots with a wide audience truly believed blew smoke up that audience's asses that Trump made an illicit (but legal) deal with the Russians, not necessarily because anyone cared that he committed a crime (they just cared about selling a narrative that would increase their ratings).
An accusation of conspiracy... that holds weight... has legal ramifications... could be considered defamation of character if it's wrong.
An accusation of collusion? a legal activity? They can dress that up as if they're really talking about conspiracy without ever saying conspiracy and watch that audience work themselves up into a ratings-building froth.
For someone who seems to be aware of bias, you're missing a huge point.
Sometimes the same lie benefits both sides' ratings. Just because there's overlap doesn't mean there's truth.
Originally Posted by TheSpoonald
If Trump was throwing watermelons off the white house roof, you'd wanna know that too. It's not a crime. But it does mean he can't be president.
Again... how can you be so, so bad at getting me. I mean... I'd wanna know... 'cause that sounds hella fun, and I'd be stoked to see Trump's old ass tossing a watermelon off the roof of any building... especially if he had a big, dumb smile on his face and his hair was all fucked and he just didn't care 'cause he was having fun doing something silly.
That I can relate to.
Last edited by MadMojoMonkey; 04-24-2019 at 11:32 AM.
Mueller is not the Attorney General. He is a special counsel.
law, law, law, legal, legal, legal, law, law, law, legal, legal, legal....
What do you think that means?
I think its probably good if the Attorney General goes to law school. What's relevant about this? Mueller is not the attorney general, he is special counsel.
Your assertion that a law agency was tasked to investigate legal activities is not a very smart position to hold.
A "law agency"? What's that? And you can just google the document man. I keep telling you. Mueller was never limited to investigating only illegal activities. Everything Trump did with the Russians, legal or not, was fair game.
Conspiracy is a crime.
Alight....I'll humor this for a bit. What's the difference counselor?
If whatever he did falls below the threshold of criminal behavior, then there shouldn't be any bearing on this presidency.
THIS IS WRONG
Even I know this. If Trump put his own interests above the country's while making an illicit agreement with the Russian government, then that should have a bearing on his presidency. If he said "No, I won't arm Ukraine if you give me Podesta's emails" it's a problem. It's not illegal to do that. It's not a crime. It's just a fucking problem. If you don't get that....don't vote anymore please.
Collusion is relevant. And it was exactly the focus of the MR. Any assertion to the contrary is positively insane. If Trump sold his country out to get a building permit in Moscow...Mueller would have told us, even if the "collusion" was not criminal. That was his job. We wanted him to find out if Trump was secretly in debt, financially or diplomatically, to the Russians, if he was vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, if any of his policies were coerced or prompted by the Russians, etc.
None of those things would be crimes. But they would be in the MR if they happened. And if they happened, Trump would not be president for much longer.
I mean... I'd wanna know... 'cause that sounds hella fun, and I'd be stoked to see Trump's old ass tossing a watermelon off the roof of any building... especially if he had a big, dumb smile on his face and his hair was all fucked and he just didn't care 'cause he was having fun doing something silly.
I can't take you seriously anymore. If the POTUS suffered from acute onset dementia, that would be a tragedy for the country. And if it occurred as the result of a partisan hoax.....it's a tragedy for democracy.
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.
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.
Actually what I put in quotes is an effective total summation of what the report says.
The left wanted Mueller to say something really bad about Trump that we didn't already know.
The right was worried shitless that Mueller would say something to undermine Trump. Because even if you're a great driver, a cop who follows you for 500 miles will find a reason to pull you over. It seemed almost impossible that Mueller would come up with nothing.
But Mueller did come up with nothing. Nothing meaningful anyway. Nothing that's going to change the course of history, or even a single election cycle. Trump's poll numbers didn't even take a hit.
Sure you can talk about what's "interesting" if you want, but it's not meaningful
Trump's enemies threw a dart while standing two inches from the bullseye and missed the dartboard entirely. He wins.
Last edited by TheSpoonald; 04-24-2019 at 06:50 AM.
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.
I think you just need to accept that any news source is going to have a human bias. Ben Shapiro is a conservative, if you listen to his podcast, you're going to get a conservative take on the news. If you watch Maddow, you'll get the opposite.
When exactly was American news unbiased? Wouldn't you say that things are better now because at least the bias is on the label? At least you know what you're getting rather than sitting in front of your TV and nodding along to any old prick reading a teleprompter and telling you that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
I actually think it's better with the bias. Then you can hear both sides if you want. Getting both sides is a really good way to make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about.
And do your own fact-checking. WaPo and Politico are really bad at it.
Getting both sides is a really good way to make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about.
Actually, getting the plain facts is the best way to do that.
Watching how the facts are spun, distorted, or flat out altered is just a really good way to get your biases confirmed and/or be confused about what is actually going on.
Actually, getting the plain facts is the best way to do that.
Watching how the facts are spun, distorted, or flat out altered is just a really good way to get your biases confirmed and/or be confused about what is actually going on.
Are you just determined to be a shit today or what?
tell me professor....where does one get "the plain facts"?
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Reply With Quote
