|
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 June 08 2019 06:27 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:23 Little-Chimp wrote:
I'm not sure about appreciating xDaunt, it seems pretty clear hes not debating in good faith at this point. He dodges half the points thrown at him. Better than the average Trumper maybe, but that's an incredibly low bar. To defend someone I just insulted, he does get maybe 10 questions thrown at him at once.
That's because reasonable people are so fucking confused by what he says and believes they need constant clarification and evidence. That would be a red flag to most people. If I were outnumbered 50 to 1 on my Trump views, I'd question some things.
And as someone else mentioned, it is definitely frustrating for someone like myself who has made researching this man into his main hobby, and even makes some side money writing about him. I know Trump better than Trump, and the 35-40% of America who supports him would dwindle to probably 20% if they would just fucking read. They should start with the Mueller report and work backwards.
|
On June 08 2019 06:46 Ayaz2810 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:27 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 06:23 Little-Chimp wrote:
I'm not sure about appreciating xDaunt, it seems pretty clear hes not debating in good faith at this point. He dodges half the points thrown at him. Better than the average Trumper maybe, but that's an incredibly low bar. To defend someone I just insulted, he does get maybe 10 questions thrown at him at once. That's because reasonable people are so fucking confused by what he says and believes they need constant clarification and evidence. That would be a red flag to most people. If I were outnumbered 50 to 1 on my Trump views, I'd question some things. And as someone else mentioned, it is definitely frustrating for someone like myself who has made researching this man into his main hobby, and even makes some side money writing about him. I know Trump better than Trump, and the 35-40% of America who supports him would dwindle to probably 20% if they would just fucking read. They should start with the Mueller report and work backwards. Your post reminds me very much of this:
Cathy Garnaat, a Republican who supported Amash and the president said she was upset about Amash’s position but wanted to hear his reasoning. She said that she will definitely support Trump in 2020 but that Tuesday night was the first time she had heard that the Mueller report didn’t completely exonerate the president.
“I was surprised to hear there was anything negative in the Mueller report at all about President Trump. I hadn’t heard that before," she said. "I’ve mainly listened to conservative news and I hadn’t heard anything negative about that report and President Trump has been exonerated."
Cheryl Wanless, a Republican who has supported Amash, said she was confused by his position but after hearing him speak, doesn't “have a problem proceeding with" impeachment.
“Though in the back of my mind, I know it is not going to pass the Senate most likely," she said. "But if the process has to go this far, I think that’s fine — go ahead." www.nbcnews.com
People literally don't know about what is in the Mueller Report or what is actually going on because of organizations like Fox News, and when they find out what is actually happening, suddenly their minds start to change.
This is why I think it is important to have people like Amash. He might be able to break into the Fox News bubble and get people to think more critically about Trump. Yes, there are people like Shep Smith and Chris Wallace on Fox who try and at least try and be objective, but when only 1-2 hours out of 24 on a news channel are not basically propaganda for the administration, most people are going to fall for the propaganda that is on the rest of the time.
|
On June 08 2019 06:05 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem? Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard. If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path. You really need to stop this game of 'Well trump did it, but so did the clintons so clearly you can't complain' If he is on both side then both sides are wrong. That does not give Trump a pass at all, and that is who we are talking about. You need to take the blinders off at some point
Just to establish your point, you think Mueller shouldn't reveal any reasons his witnesses might not be credible? You've got to show a little buy-in here, aside from casting aspersions at his connections to Clinton and Obama.
Put another way, do you think xDaunt is fully right on his first point, and only wish he didn't drag in others that Nader might have connections to? It's a little hard to tell what you actually agree on, or how willing you are to engage on substance.
|
United States42263 Posts
This began on the day Barr released his summary. xDaunt went on a victory lap, started pushing a conspiracy theory that Mueller and the entire investigation were a deep state attack on Trump, and insisted that there was nothing to any of it. On the other side people like myself were pretty surprised because, as I've repeatedly stated, the established facts that nobody denies, such as Manafort meeting with Kislyak to share polling data and talk strategy, amount to more than nothing.
At the time it was argued that Barr was far from impartial, that his appointment resulted directly from a pledge to absolve Trump and hide the Mueller report, and that we should wait for the full report. The full report which disagreed materially with Barr's summary and which Mueller himself has expressed that Barr misrepresented.
Over a month later and xDaunt is still pushing the same nonsense he did when all we had was the Barr summary. Trump was allowed to capture the news cycle and mislead the population, as he always does.
Dishonesty is at the heart of this administration. They're shameless in a way that has never before been seen and people just don't know how to handle someone lying to their face like this. The lies are so big and so frequent that people can't bring themselves to believe anyone would be so dishonest as to tell them and therefore some slip through the cracks. Fact checkers just can't keep up and even when they manage to show Trump in another lie the result is just that nobody knows what the hell truth is anymore.
Words themselves have become moving targets with people in this topic using Trumpian newspeak like "non-crime" (which means crime). It's a fucking travesty.
|
United States42263 Posts
On June 08 2019 07:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem? Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard. If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path. You really need to stop this game of 'Well trump did it, but so did the clintons so clearly you can't complain' If he is on both side then both sides are wrong. That does not give Trump a pass at all, and that is who we are talking about. You need to take the blinders off at some point Just to establish your point, you think Mueller shouldn't reveal any reasons his witnesses might not be credible? You've got to show a little buy-in here, aside from casting aspersions at his connections to Clinton and Obama. Put another way, do you think xDaunt is fully right on his first point, and only wish he didn't drag in others that Nader might have connections to? It's a little hard to tell what you actually agree on, or how willing you are to engage on substance.
There are no credible Trump insiders. There's nobody in his inner circle who you could point to and say "this person has integrity". Not a damn one of them.
In many ways it's like pinning down a mob boss.
|
On June 08 2019 06:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate". I don't cite anything wrong. I cite it accurately and in context to show how its conclusions are bullshit. Stated another way, I actually read it critically. You don't. No. You're just a liar. Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. You clarified that what you meant was Show nested quote +On May 25 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:
refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge Unfortunately that's also a lie. What the report does is explicitly refuses to exonerate him on obstruction. That's the difference between not explicitly stating that something is the case, ie leaving it implicitly stated, and explicitly stating that something is false. You have repeatedly and clearly lied about the content of the Mueller report over and over. You are a liar. And not just a liar, but one so foolish as to lie about the content of a public document that many people in this topic have read. What's even more confusing is that you are now in the process of lying about whether you told those previous lies in a public topic of which the people here are all readers. Stop lying xDaunt. You've literally nothing to gain from it. We all know you're a liar. Your lies aren't credible. Just stop.
I haven't lied about anything in the Mueller report. Like I said, and which is apparently completely lost on you, the difference is that I am reading the Mueller report critically and you are simply reading it at face value. And compounding your error on this point, you, as usual, aren't demonstrating a competent understanding of what I have said about the Mueller report. So let's try again.
To put it in overly simple and understandable (though crude) terms, when I say that the Mueller report exonerated Trump, what I am saying is that the sentence from Volume 2 of the Mueller report stating that "we do not exonerate" Trump is a lie. This conclusion flows from a complete understanding of the contents of the Mueller report, including 1) the failure of Mueller to determine that Trump did commit a crime, 2) the insufficiency of the evidence itself as stated in the Mueller report to support a chargeable crime, and 3) Mueller's contortion of the OLC guidelines. And as I have pointed out, this conclusion is fully corroborated by Barr and Rosenstein's determination that the Mueller report does not lay out evidence of a chargeable crime.
Now, I fully understand that this argument is way over the heads of at least 90% of the posters here. But I have put it out there anyway because I think it's important that as many people as possible understand what's really going on here. And if people want help understanding it, I'm more than happy to oblige because I don't see this as a partisan issue. Abuse of governmental law enforcement power is deadly serious business.
But what I find disappointing is that so many people around here continue to take Mueller's report at face value and without an ounce of criticism despite having countless reasons to question not only the contents of his report but the legitimacy of the entire investigation. Like I have pointed out many times already, there are many, important lies in Mueller's report. These lies constitute unethical prosecutorial conduct at best. And they potentially could constitute something far worse.
So call me a liar if you really want. All you're doing is demonstrating your own shortcomings. Shame on me for wasting my time engaging you. And frankly, I encourage everyone else who thinks that I'm lying about this stuff to come out and say so.
|
On June 08 2019 06:08 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 06:05 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:57 IyMoon wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. I like how you point out George Nader, who helped set up high level meetings between people in the Trump WH and the middle east as some how Mullers problem.... I mean - if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness - you had a guy working with high up members of the white house who is into child porn but somehow this becomes a Muller problem? Nader is one of Mueller's most important witnesses. Mueller, as an ethical prosecutor, should note all of the reasons why his witnesses may not be credible. Pending federal prosecution is a very big reason in this regard. If you want to play the connections game, you're going to find that Nader has far more connections to Obama and the Clintons than to Trump. Just look at who Nader's defense lawyer is. In short, I don't think that you want to go down this path. You really need to stop this game of 'Well trump did it, but so did the clintons so clearly you can't complain' If he is on both side then both sides are wrong. That does not give Trump a pass at all, and that is who we are talking about. You need to take the blinders off at some point If you think that's what I'm arguing, then you need to go back to the drawing board. Maybe you're just shit at arguing? Or maybe you assume people cant see into you deflecting?
You're the one who deflected, not I. I pointed out Nader's obvious credibility problems from his pending criminal charges which should have been noted in Mueller's report. You responded with the quite irrelevant point that Nader had contacts with Trump's administration. That's a deflection. All I did is point that it is a very bad deflection given that Nader has far more ties to the Obamas and Clintons (isn't it quite odd how almost all of Mueller's important witnesses have ties to the Clintons, but I digress....). I didn't attempt to justify anything that Trump did.
So no, I'm not shit at arguing. You just need to keep better track of things.
|
United States42263 Posts
If you're referencing a source document then the reference should not be modified to mean the opposite of what's in the source document. If you think that the truth is the opposite of what the source document says, don't reference the source document. If you don't like what the source document says then you don't have to cite from it, you're allowed to not use it if it disagrees with you. But what you're not allowed to do is decide that the source document is lying, change the quote to what you think the truth should be, and then still insist that you're citing the source document and that it's authoritative. That's lying and people will call you a liar if you do that.
Your options are the following
1) What you think is truth, the Mueller report is lying. If you pick this then you need to source your material from outside the Mueller report.
2) The Mueller report is true.
You can't quote the Mueller report as your source and then change the words so that it says the opposite of what it literally says in the Mueller report. You cannot say "the Mueller report exonerates" when the text of the Mueller report is "does not exonerate".
Fucking hell man. Pick one.
Say "Trump has been exonerated by X, Y and Z" or "Trump has not been exonerated by the Mueller report".
Don't say "Trump has been exonerated by the Mueller report and I know it literally says that it doesn't exonerate Trump but the Mueller report was lying when it said that and I know the truth behind the Mueller report and I'm right because I got that truth from the lying Mueller report so what I'm saying is definitely right because the Mueller report agrees with me except the parts where it's contradicting me, those parts are lies".
|
On June 08 2019 06:17 Ayaz2810 wrote:
At the risk of piling on, he does debate poorly. He cherry-picks lines/words, ignores well sourced facts, ignores entire posts, and engages in tons of whataboutism.
However, I give him and everyone else credit for attempting to discuss anything at all. That's something that I haven't been able to find anywhere but here. Literally. Reddit is trash, Facebook is trash, website comment sections are trash, and most in person conversations are trash. At least the guy is fucking engaging. And I do genuinely appreciate anyone who does that.
This is a good point. It has taken me a long time to let go of emotions and talk more, but it's still realllyyyy hard. Sometimes it does feel like a discussion, but more like the kind with extended family in which people are just speaking at each other, but nobody is really listening to the other person.
|
|
|
Looks like Mexico may have just bent the knee. Trump is tweeting that a deal has been reached.
|
United States42263 Posts
Your mistake was assuming Trump's tweets are in any way connected to events.
|
My favorite part of this is how his supporters pretend to roll their eyes and say we are intentionally misrepresenting his words. They will likely say that's not what he meant.
|
On June 08 2019 09:37 Mohdoo wrote:My favorite part of this is how his supporters pretend to roll their eyes and say we are intentionally misrepresenting his words. They will likely say that's not what he meant.
Everyone knows that the moon is just a conspiracy theory created by the Chinese.
|
On June 08 2019 09:33 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Mexico may have just bent the knee. Trump is tweeting that a deal has been reached.
Sounds like another closing of the whole "Trump fabricates problem -> Trump creates actual problem as a result -> Trump walks back his dumb idea to solve the previously-nonexistent problem -> Trump declares victory" loop.
|
On June 08 2019 09:33 xDaunt wrote:
Looks like Mexico may have just bent the knee. Trump is tweeting that a deal has been reached.
Mexico is finally paying for the wall?
|
On June 08 2019 07:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 06:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate". I don't cite anything wrong. I cite it accurately and in context to show how its conclusions are bullshit. Stated another way, I actually read it critically. You don't. No. You're just a liar. On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. Literal text of the Mueller report:
it also does not exonerate him. You clarified that what you meant was On May 25 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:
refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge Unfortunately that's also a lie. What the report does is explicitly refuses to exonerate him on obstruction. That's the difference between not explicitly stating that something is the case, ie leaving it implicitly stated, and explicitly stating that something is false. You have repeatedly and clearly lied about the content of the Mueller report over and over. You are a liar. And not just a liar, but one so foolish as to lie about the content of a public document that many people in this topic have read. What's even more confusing is that you are now in the process of lying about whether you told those previous lies in a public topic of which the people here are all readers. Stop lying xDaunt. You've literally nothing to gain from it. We all know you're a liar. Your lies aren't credible. Just stop. I haven't lied about anything in the Mueller report. Like I said, and which is apparently completely lost on you, the difference is that I am reading the Mueller report critically and you are simply reading it at face value. And compounding your error on this point, you, as usual, aren't demonstrating a competent understanding of what I have said about the Mueller report. So let's try again. To put it in overly simple and understandable (though crude) terms, when I say that the Mueller report exonerated Trump, what I am saying is that the sentence from Volume 2 of the Mueller report stating that "we do not exonerate" Trump is a lie. This conclusion flows from a complete understanding of the contents of the Mueller report, including 1) the failure of Mueller to determine that Trump did commit a crime, 2) the insufficiency of the evidence itself as stated in the Mueller report to support a chargeable crime, and 3) Mueller's contortion of the OLC guidelines. And as I have pointed out, this conclusion is fully corroborated by Barr and Rosenstein's determination that the Mueller report does not lay out evidence of a chargeable crime. Now, I fully understand that this argument is way over the heads of at least 90% of the posters here. But I have put it out there anyway because I think it's important that as many people as possible understand what's really going on here. And if people want help understanding it, I'm more than happy to oblige because I don't see this as a partisan issue. Abuse of governmental law enforcement power is deadly serious business. But what I find disappointing is that so many people around here continue to take Mueller's report at face value and without an ounce of criticism despite having countless reasons to question not only the contents of his report but the legitimacy of the entire investigation. Like I have pointed out many times already, there are many, important lies in Mueller's report. These lies constitute unethical prosecutorial conduct at best. And they potentially could constitute something far worse. So call me a liar if you really want. All you're doing is demonstrating your own shortcomings. Shame on me for wasting my time engaging you. And frankly, I encourage everyone else who thinks that I'm lying about this stuff to come out and say so.
I don't feel like your argument is as hard to understand as you contend. The part people struggle with is embracing the idea that Trump is the victim of a grand conspiracy intended to convict him of crimes he has not committed. This makes your framing of your argument as not a partisan issue deeply ironic, because it requires buying into the conspiracy in the first place.
|
On June 08 2019 10:15 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2019 07:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 06:41 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 06:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 05:58 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2019 05:18 xDaunt wrote:On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen. Maybe they should actually read the Mueller report like I did. Or even better, they should familiarize themselves with all of the stuff that Mueller left out of his report so that they can truly understand what they're reading. There's no shortage of critical facts that Mueller omitted so as to present a false narrative. In particular, there's all sorts of important information about his witnesses that he left out. I just discussed the Kilimnik stuff. I've previously addressed Mifsud. Another good one is George Nader. It's kinda important to note -- if you're trying to have any semblance of fairness -- that one of your star witnesses is being prosecuted for trafficking in child pornography. You know, just minor stuff like kids as young as three years old having sexual interactions with goats. There's a bit of a bias issue that needs to be addressed when the state's witness is being prosecuted by the state and has an interest in cutting a deal. When you quote the Mueller report you always seem to manage to get the words wrong. I've pointed this out in the past but it doesn't seem to change. I feel like if you'd read it you would manage to quote it correctly. Like when you misquote "does not exonerate" as "does exonerate". I don't cite anything wrong. I cite it accurately and in context to show how its conclusions are bullshit. Stated another way, I actually read it critically. You don't. No. You're just a liar. On May 25 2019 01:11 xDaunt wrote:
Mueller’s report already exonerated Trump. Literal text of the Mueller report:
it also does not exonerate him. You clarified that what you meant was On May 25 2019 01:51 xDaunt wrote:
refuses to explicitly exonerate him on the obstruction charge Unfortunately that's also a lie. What the report does is explicitly refuses to exonerate him on obstruction. That's the difference between not explicitly stating that something is the case, ie leaving it implicitly stated, and explicitly stating that something is false. You have repeatedly and clearly lied about the content of the Mueller report over and over. You are a liar. And not just a liar, but one so foolish as to lie about the content of a public document that many people in this topic have read. What's even more confusing is that you are now in the process of lying about whether you told those previous lies in a public topic of which the people here are all readers. Stop lying xDaunt. You've literally nothing to gain from it. We all know you're a liar. Your lies aren't credible. Just stop. I haven't lied about anything in the Mueller report. Like I said, and which is apparently completely lost on you, the difference is that I am reading the Mueller report critically and you are simply reading it at face value. And compounding your error on this point, you, as usual, aren't demonstrating a competent understanding of what I have said about the Mueller report. So let's try again. To put it in overly simple and understandable (though crude) terms, when I say that the Mueller report exonerated Trump, what I am saying is that the sentence from Volume 2 of the Mueller report stating that "we do not exonerate" Trump is a lie. This conclusion flows from a complete understanding of the contents of the Mueller report, including 1) the failure of Mueller to determine that Trump did commit a crime, 2) the insufficiency of the evidence itself as stated in the Mueller report to support a chargeable crime, and 3) Mueller's contortion of the OLC guidelines. And as I have pointed out, this conclusion is fully corroborated by Barr and Rosenstein's determination that the Mueller report does not lay out evidence of a chargeable crime. Now, I fully understand that this argument is way over the heads of at least 90% of the posters here. But I have put it out there anyway because I think it's important that as many people as possible understand what's really going on here. And if people want help understanding it, I'm more than happy to oblige because I don't see this as a partisan issue. Abuse of governmental law enforcement power is deadly serious business. But what I find disappointing is that so many people around here continue to take Mueller's report at face value and without an ounce of criticism despite having countless reasons to question not only the contents of his report but the legitimacy of the entire investigation. Like I have pointed out many times already, there are many, important lies in Mueller's report. These lies constitute unethical prosecutorial conduct at best. And they potentially could constitute something far worse. So call me a liar if you really want. All you're doing is demonstrating your own shortcomings. Shame on me for wasting my time engaging you. And frankly, I encourage everyone else who thinks that I'm lying about this stuff to come out and say so. I don't feel like your argument is as hard to understand as you contend. The part people struggle with is embracing the idea that Trump is the victim of a grand conspiracy intended to convict him of crimes he has not committed. This makes your framing of your argument as not a partisan issue deeply ironic, because it requires buying into the conspiracy in the first place.
Do you have an alternative explanation for the facts presented?
|
On June 08 2019 04:42 Taelshin wrote:
I'm confused, you guys are still peddling the Russia collusion? I thought we moved onto obstruction. Why isn't trump in iron's if hes guilty? why did none of his people go down for colluding with Russia? didn't Barr allow like 6 dems and 6 republicans to view the report? its time to move on pals, or impeach, which seem's unlikely to happen.
1. Collusion isn't a crime.
2. Plenty of Trump's people went down for working with the Russians and actually committing crimes.
3. Impeachment can't happen because of Republicans in Congress, even if all Democrats were aligned.
|
If people can just choose to focus on a selection of facts, one topic at a time, they can decide whether or not it adds up to conspiracy. One grouping might be whether or not the FBI counterintel probe was started for good reason, another might be what we know about whether or not it was conducted honestly, another what role prosecutors play in the justice system regarding findings & conclusions, another Barr's summary, etc etc.
Instead, I see a lot of collusion truthers trying to take shortcuts. Well, we don't have to fairly weigh Barr's arguments, because we don't like Barr as a person. We don't have to look critically at what Mueller produced, because we judge him more trustworthy than others. We don't have to worry about illegal activity within the intelligence community, because Trump will always be a worse danger to democracy than them.
Newsflash: Nobody expects you to like Trump when you're done with it, or trust in a grand conspiracy from the start, or approach the topic with anything but skepticism. Please just show you're capable of producing thoughts beyond repeating somebody else's comments ("the cop said it, so it must be true" is not a good look), and engage with the material beyond a flippant "hey, isn't it funny that ... ironic that." Nobody's even dipping their toe into 1) whether it would matter to them in any context that a witness testimony is given under duress of child pornography charges or 2) whether it matters that someone previously portrayed as a Russian agent by Mueller was actually a very productive and sensitive State Department source (and whether it matters that Mueller omitted it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
