|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 19 2019 07:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 07:06 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
If' I'm not going to be allowed to respond can we just drop it? On the one hand, seems fair. On the other hand we’re all fine talking shit about the Third Reich without giving Nazis room to explain how they’ve just been portrayed negatively in media and that really it was the race mixers who were in the wrong. Is this an invitation to make my argument without fear of repercussion (should it remain civil) or bait? Neither, I think you misunderstood. I feel the same way about people ganging up on NK as I do about them ganging up on the Third Reich. If they want to have a one sided bash on it they can. I'm going to say that equating what I've said to being a Nazi apologist is an unfair and inaccurate personal attack, but since it also came with a threat of a perm ban should I defend myself with a relevant argument on the subjects at hand I'd consider it bait. I just hope that next time we talk about the Palestinian people, that the flippant/inevitable treatment of their suffering and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Israel (supported by the US and Trump) isn't acceptable either. As far as I know nobody here is advocating for the Gaza Strip to be turned into a labour/re-education camp in which the occupants are worked to death without pay. Israel’s policy is obviously abhorrent but it’s far from as bad as NK, and I don’t think anyone is supportive of it as a general policy, the most supportive people tend to get it “it’s complicated and there are no good answers”. Whereas NK’s slave camps really aren’t as complicated and there are plenty of good answers like “stop enslaving people” or “close the camps”.
I'm not sure why you keep bringing up something I'm not allowed to discuss?
As for the point on Gaza I think we're blurring a line between website feedback and US politics that I don't want to be guilty of encouraging any further. I feel unfairly attacked and disarmed but I think it's best for me to just not discuss it in this thread given the dynamics at play.
I'm fine taking it up elsewhere if needed, or letting it go, and/or enduring future references to how a mod has already equated me to a Nazi apologist and made clear it's going to be acceptable for others to do the same.
My voice is for having an open and honest conversation in website feedback (new thread or old) but I accept if I'm alone in that and this will be my last post here on the issue.
|
On April 19 2019 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
If' I'm not going to be allowed to respond can we just drop it? On the one hand, seems fair. On the other hand we’re all fine talking shit about the Third Reich without giving Nazis room to explain how they’ve just been portrayed negatively in media and that really it was the race mixers who were in the wrong. Is this an invitation to make my argument without fear of repercussion (should it remain civil) or bait? Because so far I've been equated with Nazi apologists and disarmed from defending myself at this point.
"Disarmed" is perhaps a little dramatic considering the fact that these exact same issues were around prior to you being removed from the thread. I see absolutely no difference between this type of whataboutism as previously.
No one else is being allowed to argue in the way you insist on. Its just that you really, really like it and hate that you are being asked to stop.
|
On April 18 2019 22:56 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2019 22:51 Jockmcplop wrote:
Excellent. Now on to the real investigations, like why Trump gave high level security passes to people who were a massive risk to national security. Ever read that story 'The boy who cried Wolf' ? That is literally the dems and majority of the mainstream media the past two years.Without actually finding any truths. At least they've moved on from Stormy Daniels now her lawyer is facing 330 years in jail.It'd be hilarious all this if it wasn't so goddamn pathetic.
Do you also find Republicans pathetic for constantly chasing Hilary and claiming they've got her over Benghazi, E-mails, Fusion GPS or the other nonsense they've tried?
|
Seeker
Where dat snitch at?36969 Posts
|
On April 19 2019 06:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 03:53 crms wrote:
If I tell a bunch of people to do illegal shit, I'm trying to do illegal shit, how successful I am matters in sentencing but not in criminality, right? If I attempt to rob a bank but then walk away, I'm still in deep shit. If I hire a hitman and he doesn't fulfill his obligation, I'm still in deep shit. If I order my employees to do a bunch of illegal stuff and they don't follow through, I'm still in deep shit. I'd hope you find yourself surrounded by friends that will restrain your worst impulses. Especially if you're being hounded by enemies for crimes you didn't commit, who are committing criminal offenses to get you. From Barr: In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. The criminal standard is corrupt intent. The fact that the President assisted the investigation with access to whatever documents and senior staff Mueller wanted works against any claim that Trump possessed the mens rea. In point of fact, he aided the investigation. Compare it with other criminal statutes that do not need intent, such as reckless endangerment. How can you state something like this with a straight face? He aided the investigation? After flaming it every day for two years? Attacking the people doing said investigation relentlessly? After calling people cooperating rats? Show nested quote +Soon after he fired Corney, however, the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. From page 370. Does that sound like aiding?
Oh yes, I'm sure the veteran investigators were hampered by verbal attacks from the man who knew he was innocent of the crime investigated. Intense obstruction. I'm sure we'll never get to see the report given the preventative measures.
On April 19 2019 08:17 Seeker wrote:
Spooky.
|
On April 19 2019 08:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 06:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 03:53 crms wrote:
If I tell a bunch of people to do illegal shit, I'm trying to do illegal shit, how successful I am matters in sentencing but not in criminality, right? If I attempt to rob a bank but then walk away, I'm still in deep shit. If I hire a hitman and he doesn't fulfill his obligation, I'm still in deep shit. If I order my employees to do a bunch of illegal stuff and they don't follow through, I'm still in deep shit. I'd hope you find yourself surrounded by friends that will restrain your worst impulses. Especially if you're being hounded by enemies for crimes you didn't commit, who are committing criminal offenses to get you. From Barr: In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. The criminal standard is corrupt intent. The fact that the President assisted the investigation with access to whatever documents and senior staff Mueller wanted works against any claim that Trump possessed the mens rea. In point of fact, he aided the investigation. Compare it with other criminal statutes that do not need intent, such as reckless endangerment. How can you state something like this with a straight face? He aided the investigation? After flaming it every day for two years? Attacking the people doing said investigation relentlessly? After calling people cooperating rats? Soon after he fired Corney, however, the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. From page 370. Does that sound like aiding? Oh yes, I'm sure the veteran investigators were hampered by verbal attacks from the man who knew he was innocent of the crime investigated. Intense obstruction. I'm sure we'll never get to see the report given the preventative measures. Spooky.
Holy shit, did some new stuff drop that I missed that proved Trumps innocence? Hit me up! /s
Did you ever stop to ask yourself why someone would try so hard to undermine an investigation which would prove his innocence? All he had to do was wait, but like usual, the coverup gets ya.
Also, is that Seekers way of reminding everyone he is watching? Spooky indeed.
|
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6
|
On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6
This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch.
|
On April 19 2019 08:35 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:29 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 06:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 03:53 crms wrote:
If I tell a bunch of people to do illegal shit, I'm trying to do illegal shit, how successful I am matters in sentencing but not in criminality, right? If I attempt to rob a bank but then walk away, I'm still in deep shit. If I hire a hitman and he doesn't fulfill his obligation, I'm still in deep shit. If I order my employees to do a bunch of illegal stuff and they don't follow through, I'm still in deep shit. I'd hope you find yourself surrounded by friends that will restrain your worst impulses. Especially if you're being hounded by enemies for crimes you didn't commit, who are committing criminal offenses to get you. From Barr: In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. The criminal standard is corrupt intent. The fact that the President assisted the investigation with access to whatever documents and senior staff Mueller wanted works against any claim that Trump possessed the mens rea. In point of fact, he aided the investigation. Compare it with other criminal statutes that do not need intent, such as reckless endangerment. How can you state something like this with a straight face? He aided the investigation? After flaming it every day for two years? Attacking the people doing said investigation relentlessly? After calling people cooperating rats? Soon after he fired Corney, however, the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. From page 370. Does that sound like aiding? Oh yes, I'm sure the veteran investigators were hampered by verbal attacks from the man who knew he was innocent of the crime investigated. Intense obstruction. I'm sure we'll never get to see the report given the preventative measures. On April 19 2019 08:17 Seeker wrote:
Spooky. Holy shit, did some new stuff drop that I missed that proved Trumps innocence? Hit me up! /s Did you ever stop to ask yourself why someone would try so hard to undermine an investigation which would prove his innocence? All he had to do was wait, but like usual, the coverup gets ya. Also, is that Seekers way of reminding everyone he is watching? Spooky indeed.
The constant insinuations from the likes of you, and criminal leaks, all encouraged by the opposition party and media, for that long are a little draining to the presidency. Trump's entirely in character firing back, and he winds up embarrassed by sworn testimony. Boo hoo, he didn't get as clean of a bill of health had the entire report been Volume 1: You all got worked up over nothing. Instead we also get a second volume of stupid things the President also did along the road not arising to criminal conduct.
|
On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch.
You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book.
|
On April 19 2019 08:46 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:35 On_Slaught wrote:On April 19 2019 08:29 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 06:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On April 19 2019 04:35 Danglars wrote:On April 19 2019 03:53 crms wrote:
If I tell a bunch of people to do illegal shit, I'm trying to do illegal shit, how successful I am matters in sentencing but not in criminality, right? If I attempt to rob a bank but then walk away, I'm still in deep shit. If I hire a hitman and he doesn't fulfill his obligation, I'm still in deep shit. If I order my employees to do a bunch of illegal stuff and they don't follow through, I'm still in deep shit. I'd hope you find yourself surrounded by friends that will restrain your worst impulses. Especially if you're being hounded by enemies for crimes you didn't commit, who are committing criminal offenses to get you. From Barr: In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability. Yet, as he said from the beginning, there was in fact no collusion. And as the Special Counsel’s report acknowledges, there is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims. And at the same time, the President took no act that in fact deprived the Special Counsel of the documents and witnesses necessary to complete his investigation. Apart from whether the acts were obstructive, this evidence of non-corrupt motives weighs heavily against any allegation that the President had a corrupt intent to obstruct the investigation. The criminal standard is corrupt intent. The fact that the President assisted the investigation with access to whatever documents and senior staff Mueller wanted works against any claim that Trump possessed the mens rea. In point of fact, he aided the investigation. Compare it with other criminal statutes that do not need intent, such as reckless endangerment. How can you state something like this with a straight face? He aided the investigation? After flaming it every day for two years? Attacking the people doing said investigation relentlessly? After calling people cooperating rats? Soon after he fired Corney, however, the President became aware that investigators were conducting an obstruction-of-justice inquiry into his own conduct. That awareness marked a significant change in the President s conduct and the start of a second phase of action. The President launched public attacks on the investigation and individuals involved in it who could possess evidence adverse to the President, while in private, the President engaged in a series of targeted efforts to control the investigation. For instance, the President attempted to remove the Special Counsel; he sought to have Attorney General Sessions unrecuse himself and limit the investigation; he sought to prevent public disclosure of information about the June 9, 2016 meeting between Russians and campaign officials; and he used public forums to attack potential witnesses who might offer adverse information and to praise witnesses who declined to cooperate with the government. From page 370. Does that sound like aiding? Oh yes, I'm sure the veteran investigators were hampered by verbal attacks from the man who knew he was innocent of the crime investigated. Intense obstruction. I'm sure we'll never get to see the report given the preventative measures. On April 19 2019 08:17 Seeker wrote:
Spooky. Holy shit, did some new stuff drop that I missed that proved Trumps innocence? Hit me up! /s Did you ever stop to ask yourself why someone would try so hard to undermine an investigation which would prove his innocence? All he had to do was wait, but like usual, the coverup gets ya. Also, is that Seekers way of reminding everyone he is watching? Spooky indeed. The constant insinuations from the likes of you, and criminal leaks, all encouraged by the opposition party and media, for that long are a little draining to the presidency. Trump's entirely in character firing back, and he winds up embarrassed by sworn testimony. Boo hoo, he didn't get as clean of a bill of health had the entire report been Volume 1: You all got worked up over nothing. Instead we also get a second volume of stupid things the President also did along the road not arising to criminal conduct.
I suppose in your defense nobody could argue that Trump is a rational actor. Given options he will consistently choose the worse one, including undermining an investigation which would prove his innocence.
Can we get back to the fact that Trump is possibly only President today because members of his administration, namely McGahn, grew a conscious? If he had initiated the Saturday Night Massacre as Trump wanted it very well could have ended his whole presidency there. Shame his cronies arent all as unethical as him; we could have woken up from this nightmare sooner.
|
On April 19 2019 07:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 07:30 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 07:06 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
If' I'm not going to be allowed to respond can we just drop it? On the one hand, seems fair. On the other hand we’re all fine talking shit about the Third Reich without giving Nazis room to explain how they’ve just been portrayed negatively in media and that really it was the race mixers who were in the wrong. Is this an invitation to make my argument without fear of repercussion (should it remain civil) or bait? Neither, I think you misunderstood. I feel the same way about people ganging up on NK as I do about them ganging up on the Third Reich. If they want to have a one sided bash on it they can. I'm going to say that equating what I've said to being a Nazi apologist is an unfair and inaccurate personal attack, but since it also came with a threat of a perm ban should I defend myself with a relevant argument on the subjects at hand I'd consider it bait. I just hope that next time we talk about the Palestinian people, that the flippant/inevitable treatment of their suffering and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Israel (supported by the US and Trump) isn't acceptable either. As far as I know nobody here is advocating for the Gaza Strip to be turned into a labour/re-education camp in which the occupants are worked to death without pay. Israel’s policy is obviously abhorrent but it’s far from as bad as NK, and I don’t think anyone is supportive of it as a general policy, the most supportive people tend to get it “it’s complicated and there are no good answers”. Whereas NK’s slave camps really aren’t as complicated and there are plenty of good answers like “stop enslaving people” or “close the camps”. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up something I'm not allowed to discuss? As for the point on Gaza I think we're blurring a line between website feedback and US politics that I don't want to be guilty of encouraging any further. I feel unfairly attacked and disarmed but I think it's best for me to just not discuss it in this thread given the dynamics at play. I'm fine taking it up elsewhere if needed, or letting it go, and/or enduring future references to how a mod has already equated me to a Nazi apologist and made clear it's going to be acceptable for others to do the same. My voice is for having an open and honest conversation in website feedback (new thread or old) but I accept if I'm alone in that and this will be my last post here on the issue.
For the record, I disagree with you about NK. However I do think it’s unfair that a Mod is threatening to ban you for discussing your opinion on it. That’s sort of a misuse of power in my opinion (no offense Kwark. I recognize your role here is not an easy one and you do need to make difficult calls).
Anyways, I do want to say that I think you’re in the right with regards to whether or not you should be allowed to state opinions supporting the NK regime. (Though again, I still disagree with those opinions).
Also this Mueller report stuff seems like quite a big deal. I’m gonna guess this isn’t going away anytime soon, does anyone think this could cause a republican to challenge Trump in a primary?
|
On April 19 2019 08:53 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch. You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book.
He hasn't responded at all yet.
With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd.
|
|
|
On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch.
The report pretty much laid out that no one listens to Trump's bad plans to fight by doing illegal stuff. I don't think that is going to change.
Edit: Oh I forgot that you the report was created by unclean hands, so that part must not be true too.
On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6
One might say off the hook. In the near future, I personally am going to enjoy Sarah Sanders having to deal with admitting in the report that she lies to the press and being unable to take it back. It is the little things in life.
|
On April 19 2019 08:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:53 NewSunshine wrote:On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch. You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book. He hasn't responded at all yet. With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd.
I don't care. I really, honestly don't at this point. If this report exonerated your guy so much, and Trump not only said as much, but personally called for it to just be released, it should have been released, done, end of discussion. That's not what they did at all, and you know it. So my patience for "whuh? what impropriety" is getting pretty low at this point.
In general, when someone begins the fight with a sucker punch, I give less than no shits how they counter the punch that gets thrown back at them.
|
On April 19 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch. The report pretty much laid out that no one listens to Trump's bad plans to fight by doing illegal stuff. I don't think that is going to change. Edit: Oh I forgot that you the report was created by unclean hands, so that part must not be true too. Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 One might say off the hook. In the near future, I personally am going to enjoy Sarah Sanders having to deal with admitting in the report that she lies to the press and being unable to take it back. It is the little things in life.
It really is the little things in life. I personally cannot wait for Sunday night and John Oliver does his take on this whole thing. That will be quality viewing right there.
|
On April 19 2019 09:11 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 09:04 Plansix wrote:On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch. The report pretty much laid out that no one listens to Trump's bad plans to fight by doing illegal stuff. I don't think that is going to change. Edit: Oh I forgot that you the report was created by unclean hands, so that part must not be true too. On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 One might say off the hook. In the near future, I personally am going to enjoy Sarah Sanders having to deal with admitting in the report that she lies to the press and being unable to take it back. It is the little things in life. It really is the little things in life. I personally cannot wait for Sunday night and John Oliver does his take on this whole thing. That will be quality viewing right there.
Same. It was very clear that they were deliberately not going to do a show commenting on the Mueller report until we actually got to see the damn thing, but now I'm excited. It'll be some good TV.
|
On April 19 2019 07:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 07:06 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 07:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 19 2019 07:00 KwarK wrote:On April 19 2019 06:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
If' I'm not going to be allowed to respond can we just drop it? On the one hand, seems fair. On the other hand we’re all fine talking shit about the Third Reich without giving Nazis room to explain how they’ve just been portrayed negatively in media and that really it was the race mixers who were in the wrong. Is this an invitation to make my argument without fear of repercussion (should it remain civil) or bait? Neither, I think you misunderstood. I feel the same way about people ganging up on NK as I do about them ganging up on the Third Reich. If they want to have a one sided bash on it they can. I'm going to say that equating what I've said to being a Nazi apologist is an unfair and inaccurate personal attack, but since it also came with a threat of a perm ban should I defend myself with a relevant argument on the subjects at hand I'd consider it bait. I just hope that next time we talk about the Palestinian people, that the flippant/inevitable treatment of their suffering and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Israel (supported by the US and Trump) isn't acceptable either. As far as I know nobody here is advocating for the Gaza Strip to be turned into a labour/re-education camp in which the occupants are worked to death without pay. Israel’s policy is obviously abhorrent but it’s far from as bad as NK, and I don’t think anyone is supportive of it as a general policy, the most supportive people tend to get it “it’s complicated and there are no good answers”. Whereas NK’s slave camps really aren’t as complicated and there are plenty of good answers like “stop enslaving people” or “close the camps”.
There are some posters who have in the past expressed positive views on the idea of the Palestinians going extinct and refuting the idea that the Israelis have ever done anything wrong in their dealings with them.
But nobody that I remember - from the last round at least - arguing actively that the Palestinians should be exterminated (just perfectly content with the idea of their extinction).
So there's some pretty hardline viewpoints on Palestine floating about.
On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch.
Why? Even you admit Trump is full of shit and like to say that people should ignore his tweets.
Or by 'counterpunch' are you referring to a more substantive and/or legal retaliation?
|
On April 19 2019 09:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2019 08:59 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:53 NewSunshine wrote:On April 19 2019 08:45 xDaunt wrote:On April 19 2019 08:38 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
No it isn't.
I'm gonna hit up NPR over the weekend and try to get through the report as quickly and understanding...ly, as possible. But from the excerpts I've read posted here...2020 is indeed, gonna be lit. To quote P6 This is a little premature. You should wait for Trump's counter punch. You mean like the one he gave before everyone got to see the report, on account of him and his team having access to it before everyone else? That's a sucker punch, in my book. He hasn't responded at all yet. With regards to Trump's people seeing the report before anyone else, did you listen at all to Barr's explanation for why that happened? The idea that there was some impropriety there is utterly absurd. Do you believe what in the report to be true. Specifically in regards to the requests he made that were not followed through on? Also on how he wanted to fire people but was unwilling to do it himself? Also, what parts of the report do you believe to be untrue?
I don't know. I haven't read the report yet. I plan to tomorrow while traveling. I doubt that there will be any particular reported fact that is untrue. For example, if the report says "Mr. X said Y," I probably won't have any reason to doubt that. Like I said before, my larger concern with the Mueller report is the extent to which certain facts have been omitted and downplayed, thereby creating a situation where readers will digest harmful information out of context that really isn't harmful. We already see this happening with selecting quoting of certain elements of the report. This is why the underlying conclusions of the report -- that there was no collusion and that the Mueller team did not exercise their prosecutorial judgment to find that there's probable cause that Trump obstructed justice -- are so important. Every fact should be scrutinized through those lenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
