Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[BananaStand]

Yes

Insanity

[Poopadoop]

We already have one resident yahoo pretty excited about the prospect of paying for the wall because he's somehow convinced that mexico will reimburse him later.

True. But there's some yahoos who are not quite as able to wrap their minds around complex economic issues they're being lied to about. All they heard was 'mexico's going to pay' as if that means Mexico writes the US a big fat check for $30b. To them, 'pay thru trade' is over their heads because they somehow can't see $30b suddenly coming out of a tariff on taco sauce (or 'remittances' lol like that's going to come to $30b, assuming it can even be enforced or w/e).

[Poopadoop]

I suppose that while the American consumer pays more, American companies just got a little more competetive relative to their Mexican competitors, securing jobs in America, so the overall economic effect could be beneficial.

Protectionism 101.

Protectionism 102 is when they explain why it's a bad idea to start trade wars. Because the other guy has also taken Protectionism 101 class and will surely retaliate by slapping tariffs on your exports.

[BananaStand]

'remittances' lol like that's going to come to $30b,

$29 billion in 2017. Ruh Roh!

assuming it can even be enforced or w/e).

The gov't has the power to levy taxes. What are you missing?

[BananaStand]

Protectionism 102 is when they explain why it's a bad idea to start trade wars. Because the other guy has also taken Protectionism 101 class and will surely retaliate by slapping tariffs on your exports.

Sounds like the richer country should win every time. Easy game.

[OngBonga]

Yes but usually one nation has more to lose than the other... that is, one always has the upper hand.

[Poopadoop]

$29 billion in 2017. Ruh Roh!


The gov't has the power to levy taxes. What are you missing?

So they basically intercept any money leaving the country and put it in a big jar called 'wall fund, paid for by Mexicans living in the US?'.

You really live on fancy street don't you?

[OngBonga]

Sounds like the richer country should win every time. Easy game.

Nice crosspost.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like the richer country should win every time. Easy game.

Try again. Both countries lose through the hindrance of trade.

[OngBonga]

Try again. Both countries lose through the hindrance of trade.

Depends. People don't stop consuming. Where does the stuff that was coming from Mexico come from instead? America? Canada? Someone is gaining from it.

[Poopadoop]

Sounds like the richer country should win every time. Easy game.

Then why have free trade agreements with poorer countries? Someone hasn't though that one through I guess. Oh I know, it's a liberal sham move all about being 'fair' or some stupid concept like that.

Trust me, being fair isn't what trade is about. If it were a good idea to have tariffs all over the place, everyone would be doing it. They're not.

[BananaStand]

So they basically intercept any money leaving the country and put it in a big jar called 'wall fund, paid for by Mexicans living in the US?'.

You really live on fancy street don't you?

Let me explain this to you slowly...

A mexican person, or mexican company makes money in America. The earnings get sent back to Mexico via wire transfer.

It would be trivially easy for the government to levy a tax on wire transfers going to mexico.

That means money that would have otherwise gone to the Mexican economy, now stays in America.

Then they put it in a big jar called "wall fund"

[BananaStand]

Then why have free trade agreements with poorer countries? Someone hasn't though that one through I guess. Oh I know, it's a liberal sham move all about being 'fair' or some stupid concept like that.

You sound like Trump

[OngBonga]

Then why have free trade agreements with poorer countries?

Because it suits us. Their labour is cheaper, so that's basically their export.

[Poopadoop]

Depends. People don't stop consuming. Where does the stuff that was coming from Mexico come from instead? America? Canada? Someone is gaining from it.

It costs the consumer more because whatever thing they could produce more cheaply in Mexico they now have to pay more for to buy from the US or another country. The jobs that money creates are more than made up for by the jobs lost when everyone has less money to spend.

Pretty basic stuff. Again, if it were a good idea to have trade wars, countries would be doing it left and right. It's not and so they don't.

[Poopadoop]

Because it suits us. Their labour is cheaper, so that's basically their export.

You could have free migration without free trade. Easy to keep them separate.

[OngBonga]

It costs the consumer more

Sure. But that money doesn't just disappear. Maybe before $5 was going to a Mexican company, now $6 is going to an American company. Who's worse off?

[Poopadoop]

Let me explain this to you slowly...

A mexican person, or mexican company makes money in America. The earnings get sent back to Mexico via wire transfer.

It would be trivially easy for the government to levy a tax on wire transfers going to mexico.

That means money that would have otherwise gone to the Mexican economy, now stays in America.

Then they put it in a big jar called "wall fund"

How much are you going to tax it? And why do you think the Mexican won't just wait until Trump is no longer president and someone sane takes over and revokes the law? And then what if the Mexican can't wait so just drives the money over the border himself to his family once every six months.

You're foolproof plan is only going to convince fools.

[Poopadoop]

Sure. But that money doesn't just disappear. Maybe before $5 was going to a Mexican company, now $6 is going to an American company. Who's worse off?

The consumer. Next question?

[OngBonga]

You could have free migration without free trade. Easy to keep them separate.

Free migration? Their labour is worth a lot more here than it is in some poor country. We use their factories in their country with their employment laws, and then ship in their goods. Increasing tarrifs is bad for us, because we're the consumers. So the free trade deal suits us. Meanwhile, it suits them too because we're buying their shit off them.

[OngBonga]

The consumer. Next question?

But not the economy. And a stronger economy benefits the consumer.

[Poopadoop]

Free migration? Their labour is worth a lot more here than it is in some poor country. We use their factories in their country with their employment laws, and then ship in their goods. Increasing tarrifs is bad for us, because we're the consumers. So the free trade deal suits us. Meanwhile, it suits them too because we're buying their shit off them.

So you agree with me now that tariffs are stupid in principle?

[Poopadoop]

But not the economy. And a stronger economy benefits the consumer.

You know what benefits the individual consumer even more than a strong economy? Having more money to spend.

[OngBonga]

So you agree with me now that tariffs are stupid in principle?

It depends. I mean, honestly, I have no idea. I'm sure I could think of examples both for and against. It really will depend on what the overall strategy is.

[OngBonga]

You know what benefits the individual consumer even more than a strong economy? Having more money to spend.

Not if that money doesn't buy as much. A weak economy will mean high inflation.

[BananaStand]

How much are you going to tax it?

Alot

And why do you think the Mexican won't just wait until Trump is no longer president and someone sane takes over and revokes the law?

Workers and businesses are just going to sit on their money until it's safe to move??? You don't see the flaw in this plan? You think Pence will revoke the tax? If that money stays in the American economy instead of the Mexican, then that's a win.

And then what if the Mexican can't wait so just drives the money over the border himself to his family once every six months.

$29 Billion dollars?

[OngBonga]

Would you rather have $2 where a can of coke is $1, or $2.50 where a can of coke is $1.50?

[Poopadoop]

Alot

Gimme a number. I know numbers are hard for you so I'll make it multiple choice: 10%, 25%, 50%?

Workers and businesses are just going to sit on their money until it's safe to move??? You don't see the flaw in this plan? You think Pence will revoke the tax? If that money stays in the American economy instead of the Mexican, then that's a win.

Lol when Pence is president...

$29 Billion dollars?

Every Mexican has $29 billion dollars that he sends back to Mexico? You're right it would hard to fit that in a car. Probably not impossible though.

[Poopadoop]

Would you rather have $2 where a can of coke is $1, or $2.50 where a can of coke is $1.50?

Where are you getting the extra .50 from? It's not like you're saving money on the things the tariffs are put on.

[Poopadoop]

Not if that money doesn't buy as much. A weak economy will mean high inflation.

You mean like the high inflation we had in the weak economy from 2008 onwards? Is basically stagnant the same as high inflation now?

Or do you mean inflation that results from prices going up, as in, say, a trade war?

[BananaStand]

Wanna guess what remittances are doing to inflation in Mexico?

How's the peso doin'?

[BananaStand]

Gimme a number. I know numbers are hard for you so I'll make it multiple choice: 10%, 25%, 50%?

Any of the above. I really don't care. Why is it important?

Lol when Pence is president...

This pathetic deflection can only mean that we've reached an understanding. You are conceding that you were ridiculous to insinuate that Mexican workers and businesses in America would just leave their money put and try to ride out an administration.

Every Mexican has $29 billion dollars that he sends back to Mexico?

I'm not even going to begin to explain to you how stupid this is. I suspect you already know

[wufwugy]

The fun part is watching the evangelical right come to grips with the idea of their president being chosen by God to cheat on his pregnant wife with porn stars.

Have you been seeing any of that?

I'm pretty deep in the evangelical right even though I am not a member. What I see is those who always hated Trump and hound him for anything, those who say they never voted for a saint, and those who compartmentalize such that they don't even care.

[wufwugy]

How exactly is this trade agreement deal gonna work? If Trump puts tariffs on Mexican imports, it'll just raise the prices and it's the American consumer who pays for the wall.

Pretty much.

I think that Trump uses his rhetoric (and some action) on trade as a tactic to get everybody to reduce their barriers. I know lots of economists and conservatives think otherwise, that Trump quite literally believes things are better if US raises its barriers, but I don't think they know Trump that well.

[wufwugy]

I suppose that while the American consumer pays more, American companies just got a little more competetive relative to their Mexican competitors, securing jobs in America, so the overall economic effect could be beneficial.

I'd say the short term economic impact is insufficient to understand this system.

Given how "common sense" it is that trade is always better, you'd be surprised at the amount of stuff the economic models on trade DON'T include. They don't include a mountain of indirect effects, like how a city losing manufacturing can have more of a negative impact than the sum of the lost parts of that city. They don't cover how it is possible that the unilateral deregulation by the US along with too high of regulation by Mexico could be a root cause of a lot of Mexican gang violence. There's so much they don't cover.

That doesn't mean I'm against free trade. I'm mostly to almost entirely in favor of it. But it is also probably correct that there is a better way to do trade than just unilateral deregulation.

[wufwugy]

Sure. But that money doesn't just disappear. Maybe before $5 was going to a Mexican company, now $6 is going to an American company. Who's worse off?

In this case, it costs $1 more of capital (human, resource, etc.) to create the same thing. Since the world is constrained, this means that the world nets lower goods/services.

[wufwugy]

Lol when Pence is president...

Thanks for reminding me that I need to put a ton of money on President Pence. I wonder if I can get like 30:1 when the real odds should be like 3:1.

[wufwugy]

Wanna guess what remittances are doing to inflation in Mexico?

FWIW any inflation in the Peso is on its central bank. People can buy up all the Pesos they want, and the central bank that controls the Peso can just offset it by selling more bonds, which would reduce the Peso supply and raise interest rates, resulting in whatever change in inflation the Peso-controlling central bank wants.

[CoccoBill]

Thanks for reminding me that I need to put a ton of money on President Pence. I wonder if I can get like 30:1 when the real odds should be like 3:1.

You changed your mind about the Mueller investigation?

Oh yeah,

[boost]

You changed your mind about the Mueller investigation?

Oh yeah,

No, no, Mueller is going after Clinton! That's why Trump and other republicans were trying to push Sessions to appoint another special prosecutor to investigate Clinton.. oh.. wait.. shit..

[wufwugy]

It is unconfirmed whether it is Mueller investigating Clinton or Sessions. We'll find out.

If I recall correctly, some publicly stated information by personnel strongly implies that Sessions has been investigating the Clintons (and other government/DNC related criminals) for over a year.

[boost]

It is unconfirmed whether it is Mueller investigating Clinton or Sessions. We'll find out.

If I recall correctly, some publicly stated information by personnel strongly implies that Sessions has been investigating the Clintons (and other government/DNC related criminals) for over a year.

Stop handwaving. The distinction does matter and you said Mueller. Don't make me dig for the quote, that'd be childish of you.

[wufwugy]

I've been consistently saying that Mueller is one of these two: (1) investigating Democrat/government crimes, or (2) a tool used by the Trump administration to lead to and/or allow the hidden investigation of Democrat/government crimes.

[boost]

I've been consistently saying that Mueller is one of these two: (1) investigating Democrat/government crimes, or (2) a tool used by the Trump administration to lead to and/or allow the hidden investigation of Democrat/government crimes.

And you have consistently been hand waving while making these baseless assertions.

Your claim relies on a simplistic understanding of how the executive branch works, the hard and soft extent and limits of the presidents powers wrt the DOJ, and either an omniscient bordering omnipotent power granted to Trump or a vast conspiracy in support of him/his goals.

[wufwugy]

If you don't take risks, you're not doing anything important.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you don't take risks, you're not doing anything important.

Surely you can express that sentiment without relying on something so wishy-washy as "important."

What's important to me is effectively the upper 50% of my to-do list, and whether or not any of that is "risky" varies greatly.

[wufwugy]

Surely you can express that sentiment without relying on something so wishy-washy as "important."

What's important to me is effectively the upper 50% of my to-do list, and whether or not any of that is "risky" varies greatly.

Among that list, what things benefit you that don't involve you taking risk (other than the base things, like "I have to eat to not die"). For example, if your to-do list includes getting in better shape, production towards that goal involves risk-taking. As we see, risk-free methods don't work.

[boost]

If you don't take risks, you're not doing anything important.

What is this in response to? I mean, aside from it alluding to a false dichotomy, what is it even addressing ITT?

[wufwugy]

What is this in response to? I mean, aside from it alluding to a false dichotomy, what is it even addressing ITT?

I felt like arguing with you but then I recalled that at least you're taking risks (as am I) in this circumstance. It's people who don't take risks that I have beef with.

You're on record saying you think Mueller is going to gut Trump (IIRC); I'm on record saying Mueller is either doing the opposite or is a smoke show. Even if either of us are wrong or both wrong, we're at least doing what we should: forming our views concretely and attaching them to ourselves in such a way that we experience downside risk when things don't go our way. It's not your type I have beef with, but the type who just mocks and points. They give abstract opinions yet never will have anything on the line, never will say anything concrete, never will say something falsifiable. There is robustness to views that emerge from risk-taking, and the opposite to views that emerge without risk-taking.

[boost]

Still seems like a non sequitor, but I'll just take it as a tangent/topic change.

I do like your (Taleb's?) "skin in the game" analysis of the words people utter. That said, Trump, the equivocating mother fucker he is-- how is that your guy?

[wufwugy]

Still seems like a non sequitor, but I'll just take it as a tangent/topic change.

I do like your (Taleb's?) "skin in the game" analysis of the words people utter. That said, Trump, the equivocating mother fucker he is-- how is that your guy?

It's Taleb's.

About Trump and equivocation, I just don't know. I'm not an expert in mass media presentation, perhaps nobody really is. A lot of the stuff he does, if he did that in personal circumstances, it might not go well at all. Many have said he doesn't do that in person, but that's a different matter.

We have standards of mass media presentation, and Trump breaks a lot of them. How "correct" are those standards? I don't know. What has the impact been by Trump breaking them? I don't know. That which makes me more sanguine about Trump breaking the standards is that the breaking seems to work for intended purposes and makes theoretical sense.

Though you could be right, could be a total disaster. The standards exist for a reason. I'll note that I agree with the view that this is a one-off kind of thing. Others will try to imitate Trump and fail. By 2024, I think we'll be back to normal, it will almost be as if Trump's presentation style never even existed.

[boost]

It's Taleb's.

About Trump and equivocation, I just don't know. I'm not an expert in mass media presentation, perhaps nobody really is. A lot of the stuff he does, if he did that in personal circumstances, it might not go well at all. Many have said he doesn't do that in person, but that's a different matter.

Whether he does or doesn't do it in personal settings is something I'm curious about, and it seems accounts go both ways, but I think it's irrelevant here-- he's both the chief executive and the head of state. The case I'm presenting is that it is probably deleterious to his duties as both, but certainly, I'd say, to his duties as head of state.

We have standards of mass media presentation, and Trump breaks a lot of them. How "correct" are those standards? I don't know. What has the impact been by Trump breaking them? I don't know. That which makes me more sanguine about Trump breaking the standards is that the breaking seems to work for intended purposes and makes theoretical sense.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of this persuasion stuff "working" for Trump is like Taro cards. Once you believe they have power, you'll start to see their power. Note: this also applies to the card reader themselves.

Though you could be right, could be a total disaster. The standards exist for a reason. I'll note that I agree with the view that this is a one-off kind of thing. Others will try to imitate Trump and fail. By 2024, I think we'll be back to normal, it will almost be as if Trump's presentation style never even existed.

I think that's one possibility, that after Trumps presidency has come to an end we shift (it won't be a snap) back to established norms. But alternatively, I think he may be permanently altering (damaging in my view) the norms.

He is certainly unique amongst US presidents, but I think a lot of his style is old hat and all too common. It just so happens that it tends to show up in places that none of us would want to live.

[wufwugy]

Trump being reality TV might be one of the most important observations about Trump somebody can have.

[boost]

Trump being reality TV might be one of the most important observations about Trump somebody can have.

You trying to Scott Adams all over this forum might be the deadest horse you can beat.

[Poopadoop]

Did anyone else see how masterfully Mueller threw up a big smokescreen by busting into Trump's lawyer's properties? Clinton and Obama will be letting their guard down even more now.

/sarcasm

[wufwugy]

You trying to Scott Adams all over this forum might be the deadest horse you can beat.

Lucky for us I ain't Adamsing.

[wufwugy]

Did anyone else see how masterfully Mueller threw up a big smokescreen by busting into Trump's lawyer's properties? Clinton and Obama will be letting their guard down even more now.

/sarcasm

We don't know what Mueller is doing, but we know what he is not doing.

[Poopadoop]

We don't know what Mueller is doing, but we know what he is not doing.

More like 'some of want to believe Muller is doing something other than what it looks like he is doing.'

[BananaStand]

More like 'some of want to believe Muller is doing something other than what it looks like he is doing.'

It looks like he's trying to get himself fired

[boost]

It looks like he's trying to get himself fired

You do realize that while he may not view this as an optimal outcome, he may very well not view it as an unfavorable one?

[boost]

Lucky for us I ain't Adamsing.

Whatever you want to call your hand waving.

But while I do like ribbing you about it, and while I am weary of your true motives, I think you've become pretty adept at it. I think your presence in these threads is pretty much always, hmm, what's the word-- I think you help create an atmosphere in which people want to have a discussion. You're making your points, but you're pivoting away from them before things get heated. Pardon the pun, but you're not ceding the point, you're seeding the point. It's an interesting tactic.

[BananaStand]

You do realize that while he may not view this as an optimal outcome, he may very well not view it as an unfavorable one?

That was kind of my point. I think there is a chance (I would guess it's probably about 35%) that Mueller has nothing on Russia, nothing on obstruction, but still would like to see Trump taken down. So he might have made himself into an overreaching, witch-hunting, nuisance on purpose just to get himself fired.

Then there is a whole new "obstruction of justice" game to be played. Even if that doesn't come to pass, the dems will spin the Mueller firing into some monumentally bad optics for Trump.

The longer this investigation continues without any definitive findings on the central matter of Russia, the more I'm inclined to believe that Mueller has some kind of alt-purpose. He's run a real tight ship, with not many leaks. When Mueller's made moves, they've always been a surprise. That makes my imagination start to conjure up images of a cult-like team where the members are convinced of some higher historical and revolutionary purpose.

Some day, someone on the team (but not Mueller) will write a book about what they did. Should be a fascinating read.

[boost]

That was kind of my point. I think there is a chance (I would guess it's probably about 35%) that Mueller has nothing on Russia, nothing on obstruction, but still would like to see Trump taken down. So he might have made himself into an overreaching, witch-hunting, nuisance on purpose just to get himself fired.

Then there is a whole new "obstruction of justice" game to be played. Even if that doesn't come to pass, the dems will spin the Mueller firing into some monumentally bad optics for Trump.

The longer this investigation continues without any definitive findings on the central matter of Russia, the more I'm inclined to believe that Mueller has some kind of alt-purpose. He's run a real tight ship, with not many leaks. When Mueller's made moves, they've always been a surprise. That makes my imagination start to conjure up images of a cult-like team where the members are convinced of some higher historical and revolutionary purpose.

Some day, someone on the team (but not Mueller) will write a book about what they did. Should be a fascinating read.

I think your imagination can tend to get away from you, but nonetheless, yeah-- this will be some interesting history to look back on.

My take is that Mueller entered into his role as special prosecutor in a tough spot, but by running a tight ship and strategically revealing cards in his hand, he's been able to build enough credibility (with a significant enough portion of the public and of congress) that his initial weakness, Trump's technical ability to indirectly fire him, is now a strength. My gut feeling is that he has something significant, but he knows he needs it to be air tight because one of the defendants is a sitting US President. To get it to be air tight, you've got to flip people, and to get pressure on them you have to have information that they don't so as to put them in a prisoner's dilemma.

You could be right that either he and his team are "hardened democrats" (but, um, probably not) or that they simply are in it for the win, but my point is that to run this sort of investigation, all the things you find suspicious are actually hallmarks of a well run operation that is trying to find the truth but also cognisant that a wrong step could end the quest for the truth prematurely.

[BananaStand]

My take is that Mueller entered into his role as special prosecutor in a tough spot

Why is that spot so tough? If he's an objective lawman interested in justice, then it really doesn't matter who he's investigating. Also, unlike the members of the House and Senate intelligence committees....Mueller doesn't have to answer to a voting constituency.

but by running a tight ship and strategically revealing cards in his hand, he's been able to build enough credibility (with a significant enough portion of the public and of congress) that his initial weakness, Trump's technical ability to indirectly fire him, is now a strength.

Disagree. By being secretive, with the only leaking details seeming to be far outside of his original directive, I think he has less credibility than ever. Firing Mueller would certainly create blowback for Trump. But the amount of potential blowback is probably at it's lowest point ever.

My gut feeling is that he has something significant, but he knows he needs it to be air tight because one of the defendants is a sitting US President.

Disagree again. If the democrats gained congressional power tomorrow, the very first thing they would do is move to impeach just based on what information is currently public. They won't even need Mueller.

To get it to be air tight, you've got to flip people, and to get pressure on them you have to have information that they don't so as to put them in a prisoner's dilemma.

Manafort has not flipped. What does that tell you?

You could be right that either he and his team are "hardened democrats"

Is that what I said? I can recall pointing out the known democratic affiliations prominent on Mueller's team, but that was several hundred posts ago.

all the things you find suspicious are actually hallmarks of a well run operation that is trying to find the truth

I find the indictment of Michael Flynn to be quite dubious. I find the case against Popadopoulous to be flimsy. I find Mueller's inquiry into the Stormy Daniels situation to be an over-reach. I find his raid on Cohen's office to be borderline criminal. I find his interest into the Access Hollywood tape to be petty.

How exactly can you spin these things into "hallmarks of a well run operation"

but also cognisant that a wrong step could end the quest for the truth prematurely.

So then, if Mueller is actually trying to get fired, as we both have speculated, then that means he must have given up on the quest for truth, and now he's just trying to force an outcome. So I'll ask again....how does that conjure up sentiments of "credibility" and "well run operation" for you?

[Poopadoop]

I think your imagination can tend to get away from you, but nonetheless, yeah-- this will be some interesting history to look back on.

My take is that Mueller entered into his role as special prosecutor in a tough spot, but by running a tight ship and strategically revealing cards in his hand, he's been able to build enough credibility (with a significant enough portion of the public and of congress) that his initial weakness, Trump's technical ability to indirectly fire him, is now a strength. My gut feeling is that he has something significant, but he knows he needs it to be air tight because one of the defendants is a sitting US President. To get it to be air tight, you've got to flip people, and to get pressure on them you have to have information that they don't so as to put them in a prisoner's dilemma.

You could be right that either he and his team are "hardened democrats" (but, um, probably not) or that they simply are in it for the win, but my point is that to run this sort of investigation, all the things you find suspicious are actually hallmarks of a well run operation that is trying to find the truth but also cognisant that a wrong step could end the quest for the truth prematurely.

Pretty much.

What the Mueller-as-closet-democrat-trying-to-discredit-Trump-by-dragging-on-the-investigation-with-no-real-evidence types are missing is that this isn't a TV show where everything gets wrapped up in a nice neat package in one hour. It's an actual investigation being conducted by professionals. Maybe having a reality TV president has people confused into expecting everyone to try to play to the cameras, but it's not Mueller's job to try to entertain people.

Mueller should NOT be transparent about what his next moves are because that would (obv.) harm the investigation. You don't tell the guy you're coming for next you're coming for him next so he can burn all the evidence (duh).

Also, there is no time limit (despite what all the Trump supporters want to argue) so he is better off taking his time, doing a good job, crossing the t's and dotting the i's, than just handing out indictments left and right before he's built a proper case and then praying something sticks.

[wufwugy]

More like 'some of want to believe Muller is doing something other than what it looks like he is doing.'

It is very possible that Mueller is trying to do exactly what he looks like he's doing.

Gotta keep in mind that even if he thinks that, he isn't. The administration is not investigating itself (legitimately). Perhaps the greatest troll Trump ever played on people is getting them to believe he is vulnerable to his own administration.

[wufwugy]

Whatever you want to call your hand waving.

But while I do like ribbing you about it, and while I am weary of your true motives, I think you've become pretty adept at it. I think your presence in these threads is pretty much always, hmm, what's the word-- I think you help create an atmosphere in which people want to have a discussion. You're making your points, but you're pivoting away from them before things get heated. Pardon the pun, but you're not ceding the point, you're seeding the point. It's an interesting tactic.

That's good to hear. Argument doesn't help anybody. My goal is to understand others and have them understand me.

Really the main change I have made is that I don't argue anymor

[MadMojoMonkey]

Wuf's just the best.

[boost]

Why is that spot so tough? If he's an objective lawman interested in justice, then it really doesn't matter who he's investigating. Also, unlike the members of the House and Senate intelligence committees....Mueller doesn't have to answer to a voting constituency.

At the outset Mueller needed to walk a fine line between keeping the investigation open long enough to due his duty as an investigator and actually do his duty as an investigator. Any wrong step and if there is something to be uncovered, he would have squandered the only shot anyone was likely to have.

Disagree. By being secretive, with the only leaking details seeming to be far outside of his original directive, I think he has less credibility than ever. Firing Mueller would certainly create blowback for Trump. But the amount of potential blowback is probably at it's lowest point ever.

Right, I think I was unclear-- being secretive doesn't help his credibility, being secret was necessary for him to get far enough so that he could slowly build credibility. There are now several key figures cooperating with the investigation. It's much harder to convince onlookers that this is all a sack of nothing burgers. Why were they cut deals, in what way are they cooperating?

Whatever you think about the developments in the investigation, Mueller is part of the picture now. It may have been risky to fire him right off the bat, but its far riskier now because a significant portion of the population is expecting results and will feel that they were robbed of a forthcoming revelation.

Disagree again. If the democrats gained congressional power tomorrow, the very first thing they would do is move to impeach just based on what information is currently public. They won't even need Mueller.

These are separate issues. Whether or not it's politically prudent, congress has a lot of leeway regarding the reason they impeach and convict a president. Mueller's job is to find the truth, and if a crime has been committed he needs to present the evidence in a sufficiently convincing way. This applies to whether he indicts (unlikely) or submits a report that ultimately makes its way to a democrat controlled or republican controlled congress. If there's a crime and his case is weaksauce, the likelihood of conviction drops dramatically, meaning the likelihood of him failing to see to it that justice is served increases.

Manafort has not flipped. What does that tell you?

He's got some gamble in him-- this is readily apparent from his bio.

Is that what I said? I can recall pointing out the known democratic affiliations prominent on Mueller's team, but that was several hundred posts ago.

I apologize, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. Even so, I think way too much is made about political affiliations. People in the DOJ, FBI, etc are not robots. Mueller, Rosenstein, Sessions, the SDNY guy-- pretty much everyone that is in a leadership role in this is a republican, many of them being Trump appointees. It would be inappropriate to exclude democrats from working on the investigation, yet when any semblance of bias has turned up, those investigators were promptly removed from Mueller's team.

I find the indictment of Michael Flynn to be quite dubious. I find the case against Popadopoulous to be flimsy. I find Mueller's inquiry into the Stormy Daniels situation to be an over-reach. I find his raid on Cohen's office to be borderline criminal. I find his interest into the Access Hollywood tape to be petty.

Neither Flynn nor Popadopolous seem to think the cases against them are either dubious or flimsy.

Mueller did not raid Cohen's office. The SDNY did. If lifting the Trump rock reveals all sorts of criminal critters, that's not Mueller's fault. It appears that he and Rosenstein intentionally referred evidence of potential crimes committed by Cohen to the SDNY office so as to avoid over reach.

How exactly can you spin these things into "hallmarks of a well run operation"

I don't think any spin is necessary.

So then, if Mueller is actually trying to get fired, as we both have speculated, then that means he must have given up on the quest for truth,

Nope, not sure how you made that leap.

and now he's just trying to force an outcome. So I'll ask again....how does that conjure up sentiments of "credibility" and "well run operation" for you?

My speculation is that Mueller does not necessarily view being fired, what with the likely actions his firing would trigger, as a negative outcome. That doesn't mean that's where he's steering the ship.

To stick with that analogy-- you're the captain of a ship navigating a narrow channel, on one side are treacherous rocks, the other side has shallow sand banks. Your goal is to make it through the channel, but should you fail that, you'd view beaching the ship as a success as compared to the only alternative, the jagged rocks.

[boost]

It is very possible that Mueller is trying to do exactly what he looks like he's doing.

Gotta keep in mind that even if he thinks that, he isn't. The administration is not investigating itself (legitimately). Perhaps the greatest troll Trump ever played on people is getting them to believe he is vulnerable to his own administration.

He is.

Prior administrations saw to it that certain parts of the executive branch would function with varying levels of autonomy. Technically he could fire people until he gets someone that does his bidding, but Nixon was kind enough to let us know how that works out.

[boost]

That's good to hear. Argument doesn't help anybody. My goal is to understand others and have them understand me.

Really the main change I have made is that I don't argue anymor

Yeah, I still think it's a bit creepy-- like "life coaches" or "gurus" who make way too much and way too intense eye contact. Yeah, eye contact is good, but, come on, man, chill the fuck out with that shit..

Also, lol@reading this right after making a point by point reply to Banana :-\

[MadMojoMonkey]

Whatever Trump may eventually be accused of (if anything) wont lead to anything if people think, "Yeah, that pretty much sounds like him." It takes 2/3 of Congress to vote guilty in the trial which follows impeachment to remove POTUS from office. So it's unlikely that anything that is seen as non-treasonous to his Congressional supporters will lead to removal from office.

Look at Bill Clinton's impeachment. His supporters never cared that he was impeached, and most don't even remember that he was.

The only other impeachment was of Andrew Johnson, who also wasn't convicted or removed from office, either.

I doubt if Trump is impeached that he'd be actually tried in a court.
Even if the evidence was truly damning and indicative of treason-level crimes, he'd resign and people would move on.

Even Nixon resigned before the inevitable.

[wufwugy]

Brrrringgg! Brrrringgg!

Hello.

Hey boss, you know that guy that you interviewed yesterday? I want to hire him to investigate your alleged crimes that the butthurt losers of a campaign that badly lost fabricated out of thin air immediately after they lost. Capiche?

Sounds good.

[BananaStand]

Trump will be on TV any minute to tell the world that he intends to start WW3

[wufwugy]

Trump will be on TV any minute to tell the world that he intends to start WW3