*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

This is a waste of time.

"Shut up" he explained....

[TheSpoonald]

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

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

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

By MMM logic steam = ice.

Or alternatively...

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM. I'm not going to respond in snippets anymore, it's too long now. Let me just see if I can rephrase your argument exactly as I understand it, and demonstrate to you how silly it is. Instead of legalese, we will use scientific terms that I'm sure you understand.

Oh thank god.
Please, lets do this.

Mueller, because of his patriotic interpretation of the constitution, has the legal ability to investigate the physical properties of any substance and declare it either solid...or not a solid.

So Mueller looks at some ice. He sees that it has firm surfaces, holds its shape, resists penetration, etc. So he reports that it's solid.

then he looks at some water and sees that it doesn't have a firm surface, and it takes the shape of it's container, so he says it's not solid.

Then he looks at some steam. And for whatever reason he can't collect it, he can't look at it under a microscope, he can't determine if the vapor in the air is tiny solid particles like dust or if it's actually a vapor. So reports no finding on steam.

By your logic, that means that steam is not not solid.

No.

By my logic, he hasn't drawn a conclusion about steam, and that's interesting. It doesn't mean solid or not solid. The false dichotomy is exposed for what it is. There is more to this than black and white.
Funny, 'cause that's your argument, not mine. Where he drew no conclusion, you're saying there is a conclusion drawn.


Back from the metaphor:
The fact that he has openly cleared the pres of some, but not all accusations is interesting.
You're the one who's claiming that since he didn't nail the pres to a wall, then there's no evidence to do so. That's simply not in the report.
IF in the report, he'd cleared the pres of each accusation under investigaion, then you'd be correct in your position. However, that's simply not what he wrote. I find the fact that Mueller clearly was willing to clear the president on some, but not all, charges, in no uncertain terms is noteworthy. Where he drew no conclusion is interesting.

I'm not the one saying there's a conclusion where there is none. You're the one who doesn't seem to really understand that Mueller literally could not say anything, in the report or otherwise, that would indicate the sitting POTUS committed a crime. That's a fact that is also interesting.

The obvious implication is that he can't report anything that would tie his hands into drawing the conclusion that a crime was committed by the sitting POTUS. Because to do so would be treason.
Do you agree that this is an obvious implication of his belief?

I'm not drawing any conclusions beyond this. Just asking if you agree with this.

Assuming so,
I'm still not saying that there are conclusions to be drawn where the MR draws none. I'm just saying there are these 2 interesting facts sitting here. They raise more questions than they provide answers.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not saying I don't do this. I'm sure it happens alot so I need to know what exactly you're referring to. I frequently use "you" when I'm not actually addressing you, MMM, specifically.

Like when I asked you about my opposition and I said "If you think Trump is racist...." the "you" in that sentence is the hypothetical, vague, nebulous "opposition" that you referenced. It's more like I'm addressing the world, and anyone in it that might present themselves as my "opposition". Not just you.

OK, cool. I'll try to parse it better, but geez... you're not making it easy.

For the record, I've never said, nor do I believe Trump is really, really racist. If anything, he talks off the cuff, and says some offensive shit sometimes. So what. Almost everyone I know is like that. Mostly legit, but sometimes just need to vent and weird shit comes out when your guard is down. It happens. If there's no pattern of disrespect to people, then I'm not worried.

Besides Trump is old AF. He grew up in a time where racism, sexism, xenophobia, were all more common and less frowned upon in mainstream society. Just because he learned to talk like that doesn't mean it represents his deeper beliefs.

I say "thank god" and "god bless" all the stupid time. I've actively tried to stop saying that at times in my life, and it just doesn't go away. It doesn't mean I believe in God.

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

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

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

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

By MMM logic steam = ice.

Or alternatively...

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

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

[Poopadoop]

MMM. I'm not going to respond in snippets anymore, it's too long now. Let me just see if I can rephrase your argument exactly as I understand it, and demonstrate to you how silly it is. Instead of legalese, we will use scientific terms that I'm sure you understand.

Mueller, because of his patriotic interpretation of the constitution, has the legal ability to investigate the physical properties of any substance and declare it either solid...or not a solid.

So Mueller looks at some ice. He sees that it has firm surfaces, holds its shape, resists penetration, etc. So he reports that it's solid.

then he looks at some water and sees that it doesn't have a firm surface, and it takes the shape of it's container, so he says it's not solid.

Then he looks at some steam. And for whatever reason he can't collect it, he can't look at it under a microscope, he can't determine if the vapor in the air is tiny solid particles like dust or if it's actually a vapor. So reports no finding on steam.

By your logic, that means that steam is not not solid.

This falls flat because there aren't 3 options in Mueller's case.

His task is asymmetrical, based on two possible outcomes, only one of which he is allowed to state as a conclusion. In case 1, he states Option A (the allowed conclusion). In case 2, he states that the conclusion must be drawn by others (the Congress). He does NOT state Option A.

[TheSpoonald]

This falls flat because there aren't 3 options in Mueller's case.

Fine here's a binary example

Let's say that water represents Russian contacts. Liquid water is fine. But if any of that water is ice, it represents criminal collusion. So we send in Robert Mueller to "investigate the water", but really what we're asking him to do is "see if there is any ice"

And ice is being defined as "solid water"

Mueller, is unable to declare something solid. He can only declare something not solid if the evidence is definitive.

Mueller investigates some water, finds that it's all liquid, and declares that "not solid". Then he finds some mist in the air. But he can't observe it enough to determine if it really is steam (or 'not solid water'), or if it is some other substance in the air like smoke or dust, which would be suspended solids. So he makes no finding on that.

In Poop/MMM world, that means that Mueller found water that was not not solid and that means ZOMG COLLUSION, when really all it means is that Mueller found "not liquid", which isn't a designation that exists in his lexicon.

[TheSpoonald]

Besides Trump is old AF. He grew up in a time where racism, sexism, xenophobia, were all more common and less frowned upon in mainstream society.

That's a hell of an understatement. The year Trump was born....black people weren't allowed to play baseball.

[Poopadoop]

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

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

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

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

[Poopadoop]

Fine here's a binary example

Lol, all you've done is change the analogy so there's the three states of water are liquid, solid, or mist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Poop's on top of this.

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

In Poop/MMM world, that means that Mueller found water that was not not solid and that means ZOMG COLLUSION, when really all it means is that Mueller found "not liquid", which isn't a designation that exists in his lexicon.

I haven't read everything in the past 3 pages, but I assume that poop's never said collusion 'cause poop knows that collusion is a red herring, since it's not a crime on any level of US law. Cooperation to deceive is not illegal. Neither part of it is illegal, either.

Anyone talking about collusion is either ignorant of this fact or is chasing ratings. They can be ignored from the adult talk.

[TheSpoonald]

collusion is a red herring, since it's not a crime on any level of US law.

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

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

The point here is that the left was so sure....and I mean SOOOOO sure that Mueller was going to report something on Trump that got him booted out of office. It was just the precursor to inevitable impeachment.

The fact that didn't happen and even a half-impeachment (house only) is triple digit odds at best... means that Trump wins.

His poll numbers dipped for like 3 days, and then rebounded. This didn't put a scratch on him.

If you wanna talk about what's interesting or what might happen after he's out of office, go ahead. It's loser talk.

And if every media outlet and 2020 candidate is spouting loser talk....what does that make them?

That's my only point. regardless of what you want to think...I'm not a Trump sycophant, I have plenty of not great stuff to say about the guy. But I won't say he's a traitor. I won't say he's not a patriot. I won't say he's dumb. And I wont' say he obstructed justice just because he was pissed off about the fact he was surrounded by a cabal of illegal leakers seeking to frame him for treason.

if you see any of that in the Mueller report, then you were never going to see anything else.

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

Because Mueller was never investigating collusion, a legal activity.

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

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

Wrong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you wanna talk about what's interesting or what might happen after he's out of office, go ahead. It's loser talk.

And if every media outlet and 2020 candidate is spouting loser talk....what does that make them?

Lol
What are you mentally trapped at the age of 11?
"loser talk"
lol
dude
Seriously... go back to your carpentry hobby. The grown ups are talking.
Run along, now.

That's my only point. regardless of what you want to think...I'm not a Trump sycophant, I have plenty of not great stuff to say about the guy. But I won't say he's a traitor. I won't say he's not a patriot. I won't say he's dumb. And I wont' say he obstructed justice just because he was pissed off about the fact he was surrounded by a cabal of illegal leakers seeking to frame him for treason.

if you see any of that in the Mueller report, then you were never going to see anything else.

You're not listening. You're trying to make this into some huge grand thing where we're against you or something.
Not the case.
We're against stupidity. To the extent that you're behaving stupidly, then yes, we are against you.

For the record, I'm not saying he obstructed justice. I'm saying that your claim that the MR says he didn't obstruct justice is pure fantasy.
Your ambition to push other views upon me is just painting you into a corner with a dunce cap.
I'm not trying to guess any political future.
I'm pointing out that you're pretending to have deep, adult understanding of these issues, but all you got is spoon-fed nonsense from popular ratings whores.

You seriously went back to the wall issue? You seriously pulled out that nonsense article that we debunked years ago AGAIN?!
Grow up. Your mental position on this is stuck in a rut and you can't see it.
That stupid article says "only 1 of the men managed to throw a grapple over the wall to scale it" or some fucking nonsense. Like as if it takes more than 1 failure to show that the idea is really, really stupid.
You like to bring up science. Wake up to that one. It only takes 1 verified data point to destroy all the prior assumptions and assurances.

[TheSpoonald]

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

that's not a viable argument.

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

*yawn*
Why are you telling me this?

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

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


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

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It says that. Fucking read it.

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

You say "ratings whore" alot

[MadMojoMonkey]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It says that. Fucking read it.

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

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

You say "ratings whore" alot

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

Ok....you really need to let go of the idea that Mueller was exclusively limited to some kind of law-enforcement function. He wasn't. His job was to tell us what happened. For the fifth time now....go look up his exact instructions. Tell me where it specifies "crimes" or "illegal activity"

You seem to think that collusion is a diversion. It isn't. It's a real concern that people really had for real reasons other than just ratings. It doesn't have to be a crime to matter.

Even I can admit that Trump should not be president if he made discreet deals with foreign leaders to win an election. It might not be a crime, but it would be so supremely dumb that it disqualifies him from having the job. You seem to think that the legal standards matter here, or that Mueller's job was to find something criminal, or impeachable, or whatever. You're wrong. Collusion was a real concern. And if the MR uncovered such behavior, even if it wasn't a crime, it would be devastating for Trump, and rightly so.

This whole thing was born because people truly believed that Trump made an illicit deal with the Russians, not necessarily because anyone cared that he committed a crime.

If Trump was throwing watermelons off the white house roof, you'd wanna know that too. It's not a crime. But it does mean he can't be president.

[TheSpoonald]

His "job" is not to investigate people accused of doing legal things.

where did you get this idea??

[TheSpoonald]

You've repeatedly said I have some expectation about what the MR should have said, or that it wasn't what I wanted it to be, or other assumptions based around me having a partisan interest in the public shaming of my president.

Source?

[TheSpoonald]

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

Actually what I put in quotes is an effective total summation of what the report says.

The left wanted Mueller to say something really bad about Trump that we didn't already know.

The right was worried shitless that Mueller would say something to undermine Trump. Because even if you're a great driver, a cop who follows you for 500 miles will find a reason to pull you over. It seemed almost impossible that Mueller would come up with nothing.

But Mueller did come up with nothing. Nothing meaningful anyway. Nothing that's going to change the course of history, or even a single election cycle. Trump's poll numbers didn't even take a hit.

Sure you can talk about what's "interesting" if you want, but it's not meaningful

Trump's enemies threw a dart while standing two inches from the bullseye and missed the dartboard entirely. He wins.

[TheSpoonald]

I'm bitter about the lack of an unbiased American news outlet and the lack of fact-checking and journalistic integrity that is indicative thereof.

I think you just need to accept that any news source is going to have a human bias. Ben Shapiro is a conservative, if you listen to his podcast, you're going to get a conservative take on the news. If you watch Maddow, you'll get the opposite.

When exactly was American news unbiased? Wouldn't you say that things are better now because at least the bias is on the label? At least you know what you're getting rather than sitting in front of your TV and nodding along to any old prick reading a teleprompter and telling you that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

I actually think it's better with the bias. Then you can hear both sides if you want. Getting both sides is a really good way to make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about.

And do your own fact-checking. WaPo and Politico are really bad at it.

[Poopadoop]

Getting both sides is a really good way to make sure you know what the fuck you're talking about.

Actually, getting the plain facts is the best way to do that.

Watching how the facts are spun, distorted, or flat out altered is just a really good way to get your biases confirmed and/or be confused about what is actually going on.

[TheSpoonald]

Actually, getting the plain facts is the best way to do that.

Watching how the facts are spun, distorted, or flat out altered is just a really good way to get your biases confirmed and/or be confused about what is actually going on.

Are you just determined to be a shit today or what?

tell me professor....where does one get "the plain facts"?

[Poopadoop]

banana.jpg

tell me professor....where does one get "the plain facts"?

Nowhere in the MSM, that's the problem.

But, you can find sources that aren't openly biased. Just because you choose to ignore them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Edit: And when i say "you" I mean it in the general, collective sense. I don't mean specifically "you, banana"

[TheSpoonald]

But, you can find sources that aren't openly biased.

Not "openly" bias huh? Sounds totally legit.

I'd much rather have the bias in the open, than hidden or obscured. Wouldn't you?


If you're trying to tell me that UN-biased sources exist....then I call bullshit.

[Poopadoop]

I'd much rather have the bias in the open, than hidden or obscured. Wouldn't you?

I already answered that and I already told you why. Go back two posts and read it again. Consult a dictionary if you need to.

If you're trying to tell me that UN-biased sources exist....then I call bullshit.

Of course you do.

[Poopadoop]

Also it's not that their bias is 'open', as in they come out and say 'here's a biased report, enjoy' it's just blatant. There are plenty of people who can't see blatant bias if it smacks them in the face. There's others who see it and since it matches their own bias, it doesn't register as bias.

Having a 'hiidden bias' is much more difficult to accomplish, which is why it's very rare. A bias almost always makes itself visible.

[TheSpoonald]

Also it's not that their bias is 'open', as in they come out and say 'here's a biased report, enjoy' it's just blatant.

Not sure what you're watching, but I see Fox acknowledge it's conservative tilt all the time. MSNBC clearly knows what it is. So does Vox. So does Ben Shapiro. So does Breitbart. NYT and WaPo pretty much admit to be tabloids now.

CNN, for a while to be the "objective" news sources. But it didn't work. Everyone knows what they are too.

[Poopadoop]

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

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

[Poopadoop]

The whole point of propaganda is to try to present the information as if its credible. You don't do that by being open about what your bias is. If you preface a report with 'fyi, this is a real biased line of shit we're about to feed you here', no-one is going to believe it.

Nonetheless, one can assess bias by recognizing where facts are being distorted/changed into lies, or various rhetorical tricks are being used or where the presenter is giving an editorial. I don't care what Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow (or you for that matter) think the Mueller Report means; I ignore that. I look for reports of what the substance of the report is, and what the underlying laws are. Then I reach my own conclusions. That doesn't mean they're the correct ones, and I'm aware of that. But they are mine and they aren't reached because I watched two different people give polar opposite bullshit interpretations, and then pick the bullshit I prefer.

[Poopadoop]

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

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

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

I don't care what Tucker Carlson or Rachel Maddow (or you for that matter) think the Mueller Report means;

There's a difference between 'not caring' and deliberately being contrary because of your compulsive oppositional defiance disorder.

I ignore that.

No you don't

I look for reports of what the substance of the report is, and what the underlying laws are. Then I reach my own conclusions.

No, you clearly don't give a fuck what the law is. Don't try to play that game. And you're not looking at the substance of the report. You're cherry picking confirmation bias to support the conclusions you inferred in the beginning. For example, you keep saying that Trump "tried" to fire Mueller. That's not in the report man.

That doesn't mean they're the correct ones, and I'm aware of that. But they are mine and they aren't reached because I watched two different people give polar opposite bullshit interpretations, and then pick the bullshit I prefer.

That's not how I reach my conclusions either. The point of consuming polar opposite news sources is because you can conclude that anywhere they overlap, are facts.

[Poopadoop]

There's a difference between 'not caring' and deliberately being contrary because of your compulsive oppositional defiance disorder.

This sounds more like you than anyone I know, frankly.

No you don't

You're right. I laugh at it. That's not the same as believing it though.

ONG-ANA.jpg

(I have no reason to take any of that rant seriously.)

That's not how I reach my conclusions either. The point of consuming polar opposite news sources is because you can conclude that anywhere they overlap, are facts.

Well great, all you need to do is find that 1% of the time they overlap and you now know 1% of the facts while exposing yourself to 99% bullshit. But I guess if you believe 50% of that bullshit then I can see why you'd do it.

[TheSpoonald]

(I have no reason to take any of that rant seriously.)

"shut up" he explained

Well great, all you need to do is find that 1% of the time they overlap and you now know 1% of the facts while exposing yourself to 99% bullshit.

Is it really 99 to 1? Citation needed.

And you're just dodging the question. How are you getting unbiased news? Where is this magic fountain of facts?

[Poopadoop]

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

Just explaining how the world works, grasshopper.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Poopadoop]

"shut up" he explained

I just see no reason to prolong an argument so you can rant and rave and call me names.

Is it really 99 to 1? Citation needed.

How much do you think it is?

And you're just dodging the question. How are you getting unbiased news? Where is this magic fountain of facts?

Why? You'll just argue it's biased.


More generally, and I'm being completely open about my bias here, there's really no reason for me to talk to you other than it's fun to demolish some of the stupid things and tortured logic you come up with. It's like the feeling you get when you slap around a bully. That's my whole reason for engaging with you. It's certainly not because I ever learn anything.

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

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

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

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

[TheSpoonald]

Why? You'll just argue it's biased.

"Shut up" he explained

[Poopadoop]

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

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

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

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

1. Trying to fire Mueller.

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

2. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller.

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

Are you fucking high?

[TheSpoonald]

Fun question...

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

Hint: it doesn't say that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT'S NOT A CRIME TO LIE TO THE PRESS

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

[Poopadoop]

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

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

Next.

[Poopadoop]

and then subsequently ordering McGahn not to.

Only when McGahn threatened to resign.

Next.

[Poopadoop]

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

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

Next.

[Poopadoop]

Are you fucking high?

No.

Next.

[Poopadoop]

banana.jpg

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

"Shut up" he explained

ok bud, here's a more digestable tidbit.

Explain to me how lying to the press = obstructing justice

[TheSpoonald]

Trump ordering McGahn to fire Mueller is not a crime. It's not even close to a crime. And it's certainly not obstruction of justice.

I agree with that
Trump agrees with that
Mueller himself agrees with that

Why don't you Poop?

[Poopadoop]

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

[TheSpoonald]

hqdefault.jpg

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

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

I've heard your arguments

And the cognitive dissonance almost broke your spleen.

, you've heard mine.

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

Repeating them back and forth is pointless.

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

Move on bud. Find something else to be wrong about

"Shut up" he explained.

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

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

[Poopadoop]

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

flaccid opposition.

[TheSpoonald]

Allegation 3: Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

Question: Why are emotions crimes?

[TheSpoonald]

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

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

[TheSpoonald]

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

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