EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1427
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8272 Posts
On May 06 2019 03:45 Velr wrote: This was brought up plenty of times, people just don't seem to get it and still reply to xDaunt and Danglars somehow expecting round 1025065305630 will be different. There's not much else to do in this thread, as with those two exceptions (and from time to time random ramble from GH), most people here are already in agreement (As you'd expect from something this blatant). I've found myself caring less and less about this thread as I realise that the only reason it continues to exist is the repeated arguments with those two (And a bit of news spreading, tho I already get that aplenty from elsewhere). | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12486 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I do have to agree with the subtext of the posts here and here--that if you don't like refuting the facts opposed, and think the explanations are somehow insufficient, then stop repeating the same points ad nauseum. xDaunt's third explanation of the criminal offense of obstruction won't cover much new ground. The fourth and fifth time you reiterate your opinion that someone's lying will not change anyone's mind. Ayaz's opinion on TL allowing liars is no substitute for arguments, counterarguments, and the evidence that backs up your claims. Nobody benefits when you repost your opinion on who won the last debate and who's lying. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24156 Posts
On May 06 2019 03:58 Excludos wrote: There's not much else to do in this thread, as with those two exceptions (and from time to time random ramble from GH), most people here are already in agreement (As you'd expect from something this blatant). I've found myself caring less and less about this thread as I realise that the only reason it continues to exist is the repeated arguments with those two (And a bit of news spreading, tho I already get that aplenty from elsewhere). "ramble" huh? Maybe it's just me but the last two years of focus on Trump-Russia strikes me more as "rambling" On May 06 2019 04:17 Nebuchad wrote: One of the driving forces of this is that people like to be perceived as reasonable and rational, and it's easier to be right on simple stuff. I've been guilty of sticking to topics that I know I'm right about sometimes, and from the way the thread works I'm willing to bet a lot of people are comfortable doing this. People like Nettles get a lot of traction whenever they post because it's so obvious that they're wrong, and we can all very easily explain why. Yeah, I see this a lot. No idea how it gets resolved though. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
Defending Trump outside of a purely intellectual exercise just seems a complete waste of time to me, guy’s obviously a crook morally and unsuitable to the office in obvious ways. I wouldn’t want the guy to be my manager in work never mind the President of the US, all the Mueller probe showed was confirm basically everything critics already thought was going on in his administration. I mean I can’t just unilaterally Occam’s Razor everything but for fuck’s sake | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On May 06 2019 04:21 Danglars wrote: The repetition of the same debunked points is getting a little droll. Aya2801, and his quoted post from Ben..., say nothing to Barr's sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Will you call Mueller a fool for publishing the language in the report and telling Barr that the OLC guidelines were not what prevented him from reaching a conclusion on obstruction, or do you think Barr committed perjury by claiming Mueller said that? Whining about Fox & Breitbart is no substitute for arguments. I do have to agree with the subtext of the posts here and here--that if you don't like refuting the facts opposed, and think the explanations are somehow insufficient, then stop repeating the same points ad nauseum. xDaunt's third explanation of the criminal offense of obstruction won't cover much new ground. The fourth and fifth time you reiterate your opinion that someone's lying will not change anyone's mind. Ayaz's opinion on TL allowing liars is no substitute for arguments, counterarguments, and the evidence that backs up your claims. Nobody benefits when you repost your opinion on who won the last debate and who's lying. When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges Barr says he himself had no issue pursuing charges irreguadingless of olc guidelines, I dont remember him saying Muller was the same. He does say that he thinks Muller's had no issue with his representation of the report. He also reiterates that Muller was not going to make a decision on obstruction Looking over the transcript on c span I dont find it either. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 06 2019 04:47 semantics wrote: When in the testimony does barr say Muller said the olc guidelines would have not prevented him from persuing charges Barr says he himself had no issue pursuing charges irreguadingless of olc guidelines, I dont remember him saying Muller was the same. He does say that he thinks Muller's had no issue with his representation of the report. He also reiterates that Muller was not going to make a decision on obstruction Looking over the transcript on c span I dont find it either. I watched it live. Fueled watched it archived, and also found "Barr also stated something like that in his testimony." I'll find it again to be helpful, but I won't keep finding and refinding things just because somebody doesn't search hard enough in transcripts. C-SPAN around 34 minutes We first heard that the Special Counsel's decision not to decide the obstruction issue on the March 5th meeting ... and we were frankly surprised that they were not going to reach a decision on obstruction. We asked them a lot on the reasoning behind this and the basis on this. Special Counsel Mueller stated to us 3 times in that meeting in response to our questioning that he emphatically was not saying that but for the OLC opinion he would have found obstruction... In the whole of the Mueller report, the strange justifications for not reaching a conclusion were the only things really necessitating explanation by Mueller because it is so unprecedented. It makes incredible sense for Barr to quiz Mueller directly on what the fuck he meant by not making a prosecutorial decision as a special prosecutor. It makes sense for him to share it with inquiring Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I expected Barr to testify on that matter and he did. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On May 06 2019 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: "ramble" huh? Maybe it's just me but the last two years of focus on Trump-Russia strikes me more as "rambling" Putting it a different way, it certainly shows some cojones to become exasperated at this juncture, after gleefully telling and retelling conspiracy stories emanating from the Mueller investigation and dossier for a period of two years. Like there was already enough circumstantial evidence to safely say Trump colluded with Russia. Or, what now is highly ironic, why should we take Mueller's own word for it. What does he know about what he's investigating after all. Apparently Mueller doesn't know anything about what he's investigating, since he failed to find Excludos's already public evidence. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 06 2019 00:35 KwarK wrote: Trump’s campaign manager meets with a known Russian intelligence officer to share internal campaign strategy info and discuss getting Trump elected. xDaunt: Everyone does this, it just shows he’s good at cooperating with foreigners No, that's not my point. My point is where is the crime justifying that investigation? For starters, that incident did not start the investigation. But even so, isn't it funny how Mueller discussed that episode and did not conclude that it was criminal? I wonder how that happened.... You guys keep throwing around groundless accusations of criminal conduct without either the slightest explanation of what the crime is or even any awareness that Mueller's own report undermines the point that you're trying to make. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
So stop whining about Danglars' and my participation in this thread. This not supposed to be a safe space. Don't come here and post if you can't handle well-reasoned disagreement. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2799 Posts
On May 06 2019 04:32 GreenHorizons wrote: "ramble" huh? Maybe it's just me but the last two years of focus on Trump-Russia strikes me more as "rambling" Yeah, I see this a lot. No idea how it gets resolved though. "Ramble" in this context comes more across like indicating that you're a person on the sidelines loudly raising a point, where most of the attendance is paying attention to Danglars / Xdaunt in hopes that one side or the other juicily, dramatically are proven wrong. It isn't that you're incoherent or disorganized, it is just that you'd come across that way to anyone who isn't actually paying attention to you. I mean, let's be real - Trump brand entertainment is the only reason I'm even in this thread. It is amusing. I recognize that that is alarmingly irresponsible of me, but I am happy to admit that I have learned some things along the way despite my shitty motives. So thank you, good posters of USPol, for helping me be less shitty and undereducated a person  | ||
|
Introvert
United States5013 Posts
On May 06 2019 05:39 xDaunt wrote: No, that's not my point. My point is where is the crime justifying that investigation? For starters, that incident did not start the investigation. But even so, isn't it funny how Mueller discussed that episode and did not conclude that it was criminal? I wonder how that happened.... You guys keep throwing around groundless accusations of criminal conduct without either the slightest explanation of what the crime is or even any awareness that Mueller's own report undermines the point that you're trying to make. The plausible explanation for that event in the report is also the one given in the indictments, and the one that makes the most sense. Manafort owed these people cash and shared this information essentially to prove that he was on the inside and could plausibly make it up to them if they won (that's my recollection anyway, it's something like that). I don't know why this is never even mentioned. I know that it's tempting to believe that if Hillary Clinton's campaign was too dumb to look at Wisconsin then no one could have figured it out, but it's just not true. And somehow I don't think sharing polling data is quite the collusion we were supposed to find, anyways. Going back to this event as evidence really is quite damning in the context of what we heard about for 2 years. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And who cares about if it’s criminal? Trying to get aid for foreign governments to win elections is bad. I find it hard to see a world where the Democrats try to enlist the help of China to win an election and conservatives thing it is “ok”. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On May 06 2019 05:19 Danglars wrote: I watched it live. Fueled watched it archived, and also found "Barr also stated something like that in his testimony." I'll find it again to be helpful, but I won't keep finding and refinding things just because somebody doesn't search hard enough in transcripts. C-SPAN around 34 minutes In the whole of the Mueller report, the strange justifications for not reaching a conclusion were the only things really necessitating explanation by Mueller because it is so unprecedented. It makes incredible sense for Barr to quiz Mueller directly on what the fuck he meant by not making a prosecutorial decision as a special prosecutor. It makes sense for him to share it with inquiring Senators in the Senate Judiciary Committee. I expected Barr to testify on that matter and he did. That's a double negative it's too ambiguous. I saw that in the transcript but that doesn't mean Muller did not find obstruction. The fact that it shares the same paragraph as not reaching a decision on obstruction is laughable. That allows for Muller to not reach a decision on obstruction but at the same time saying the olc did not prevent him from reaching a decision. That Incongruous, that's having your cake and eating it too. That's using implication of absence. That's simply cannot be true if Muller was not making a decision on obstruction, which is what the report explicitly says. When in reality its saying obstruction was not pursued one way or the other. So its enough evidence but olc prevented a charge and lacking evidence and olc prevented dissmissal. Hes stating that Muller made no decision regardless of evidence | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 06 2019 05:50 Introvert wrote: The plausible explanation for that event in the report is also the one given in the indictments, and the one that makes the most sense. Manafort owed these people cash and shared this information essentially to prove that he was on the inside and could plausibly make it up to them if they won (that's my recollection anyway, it's something like that). I don't know why this is never even mentioned. I know that it's tempting to believe that if Hillary Clinton's campaign was too dumb to look at Wisconsin then no one could have figured it out, but it's just not true. And somehow I don't think sharing polling data is quite the collusion we were supposed to find, anyways. Going back to this event as evidence really is quite damning in the context of what we heard about for 2 years. I was just speaking rhetorically. I know the legal explanation for why it isn't a crime. I'm just curious if any of the posters who disagree with me are finally going to take the time and effort to figure it out for themselves. There has been plenty of shouting that Trump is a criminal around here without anything resembling a reasonable explanation for why that is given that he hasn't been charged or convicted of anything. And people accuse me of making bombastic points with no support.... | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On May 06 2019 05:45 xDaunt wrote: As for Velr, Excludos, and Ayaz, I'll make it easy for you guys. Given that y'all don't seem to see much value in engaging me, and given that I see zero point in engaging any of you, I'll just ignore you from here on out, and y'all can ignore me. If you start contributing something interesting and well-reasoned to the thread, I'll certainly be willing to reconsider my position. So stop whining about Danglars' and my participation in this thread. This not supposed to be a safe space. Don't come here and post if you can't handle well-reasoned disagreement. Interesting, it’s obviously because we’re inculcated in our safe spaces that we have our positions What ‘well-reasoned’ disagreement is here? Your entire argument hinges around the likes of Mueller being politically motivated hacks, that despite wrongdoing uncovered it wasn’t the scope of the investigation so it doesn’t count, and invoking standards of decorum and precedent that the President himself doesn’t seem too keen on. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On May 06 2019 05:57 Wombat_NI wrote: Interesting, it’s obviously because we’re inculcated in our safe spaces that we have our positions What ‘well-reasoned’ disagreement is here? Your entire argument hinges around the likes of Mueller being politically motivated hacks, that despite wrongdoing uncovered it wasn’t the scope of the investigation so it doesn’t count, and invoking standards of decorum and precedent that the President himself doesn’t seem too keen on. Well, yeah. You're citing my bottom-line conclusions without any of the reasoning that I have given. Of course that's not going to look well-reasoned. What you're doing to me is worse than what Barr did to Mueller. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
On May 06 2019 06:00 xDaunt wrote: Well, yeah. You're citing my bottom-line conclusions without any of the reasoning that I have given. Of course that's not going to look well-reasoned. What you're doing to me is worse than what Barr did to Mueller. No that’s not a fair characterisation at all, you act like your some independent interlocutor and your positions continually just defend Trump when he’s ‘unfairly attacked’, while invoking years old angles on Clinton and Obama, whose ‘corruption’ you continually invoke is at worst no worse than Trumps. It’s a preposterous position to hold | ||
| ||
