Russia was playing both sides, but they were playing Clinton's side much harder because [for most people] she was expected to win.
Big whoop. Same shit, different election. Happens all the time, all over the world.
Printable View
Russia was playing both sides, but they were playing Clinton's side much harder because [for most people] she was expected to win.
Big whoop. Same shit, different election. Happens all the time, all over the world.
And yet despite being pure down to his toes, Trump fired one guy who was investigating him on Russia and tried to fire the next one...
So either a) he's guilty and thinks he can solve his problems by lolfiring everyone who might be able to prove he's guilty; or b) he's innocent and tried to obstruct justice because he believes the Fox and Friends narrative that loldeepstate is after him. In this scenario his only crime is that he doesn't have a clue how firing everyone in charge of investigating him makes him look guilty, and wouldn't stop the investigation anyways.
All of which kind of speaks to the point about him being dumb as a sack of burgers.
There's no evidence that he "tried to fire the next one," just hearsay. There's also no evidence he fired the first guy because of anything to do with Russia. There's not much evidence that the first guy was even investigating him over Russia. Any assertions otherwise make you look like a clown.
Well even Hannity's sources (eventually) confirmed it. That's good enough for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNK0Qgnxa7I
lol "The fake news is just trying to distract you....oh wait, it's true? Hey, there's a car crash!!"
There's so many alternative facts provided by Trump and others on his side as to make it seem suspicious. He says one thing, the White House Gargoyle Conway says another, the press secretary has a different excuse. Sure, whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Regardless, it must have occurred to him (or someone on his team with a brain) how it would look.
You mean apart from Comey's comments before he was fired and sworn testimony afterwards? Damn, someone needs to get logic a lawyer the way you are torturing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The most generous interpretation of the whole story is that Trump's ego couldn't deal with the idea that Russia helped him win, and that he's too stupid to know he can't just go around firing everyone involved to get the investigation to stop.
I should have known better than to try to poke at it with logic. It gets cranky when you do that.
How would it have looked if he fired Comey, and then when asked why, he answered "It's classified"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Maybe that was exactly the case, but instead he gave a different story in order to manage "optics". Someone mentioned once that's pretty important.
I think it's entirely plausible that the soon-to-be released memo about FISA abuses has Comey's name all over it. Trump seems to have been aware, long before anyone else, that he was under surveillance. Maybe he knew that Comey aided and abetted Obama's abuses of power.
If that's the case, optics be damned, Comey has to go.
How is that scenario any less plausible than one where Trump fired Comey to obstruct justice?
Seems to me that if you're the kind of person who just looks at a set of questionable circumstances, and decides to infer the worst just because you don't like the person in question, you are guilty of a kerfuffle.
Wp.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Oh, so now there's ANOTHER reason why he fired Comey, to add to the three or four provided at the time.
Just a perfect example of propaganda at work. The more alternative facts you can provide, the less people will know what to believe.
Goebbels would be proud.
WpQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I didn't insult you, I countered your argument. But from this it seems you can't tell the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sorry, I must be unclear on the definition of "insult". You referred to my argument as "propaganda" (as if yours isn't, lol), and likened me to one of the worst human rights violators in history. What do you call that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Dismissing an argument is not the same as "countering". Try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I didn't liken you to anything. I likened the latest Fox-inspired explanation for why Trump fired Comey to a propaganda technique where one floods the situation with alternative facts in order to confuse people.
Calling your argument all kinds of shit is not the same as calling you all kinds of shit. I don't know why you try to personalize everything. Basically, in your little world, it seems anyone who doesn't agree with you is insulting you.
I guess that's where you get the idea that calling people names is a solid debating strategy.
Deflecting isn't countering eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
That's right it isn't. What's your point?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
'cause mine is that we get fed a number of different stories, and as time goes on the alternate facts pile up. I pointed out how this a known propaganda technique.
Why should we take this story any more seriously than the other three or four offered before? Why provide so many different explanations in the first place?
When you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy, but the pig likes it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Watching the rumble tonight?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
You're exaggerating. There were only two explanations for firing Comey. And they are not mutually exclusive. Just because Trump had two good reasons for firing Comey, doesn't mean that his story is inconsistent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yeah. Women over the top rope LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
I put the over/under on injuries just from that match at 5.5.
Democrats see that quote as a smoking gun. Trump admitted to firing Comey to stifle the Russia investigation.Quote:
Trump said. “And, in fact, when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said, ‘You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story. It’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.’”
or......alternate theory.......
If Trump did not collude with Russia, then Trump would know for sure, that an investigation would yield nothing. He would also know, for sure that no evidence of collusion exists. Therefore, Trump could conclude that Comey is conducting a politically motivated investigation with no evidence. Fire-able offense.
Then...two days later, a highly respected bi-partisan deputy attorney general made an extensive written recommendation to fire Comey based on an overwhelming lack of public confidence related to his bungling of the Hillary investigation.
A freshman communications student can tell you that the latter plays better as an "official message".
And then later, a jubilant, bombastic, and egotistical Trump couldn't help but drop a brag about HE made the decision himself based on his own evaluation of Comey's incompetence.
I'm not seeing a crime there.
The left's alternate theory is that Trump got lucky that Rosenstein wrote that memo because Trump had already made up his mind to obstruct justice. Then, in an interview with CNN Trump had a brain fart and accidentally confessed. C'mon. He's not dumb!!!
I'm expecting it to be pretty crap, especially with Steph, which is a shame because the best of womens wrestling is pretty great.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I just want to see Kane win the championship, if that happens I don't care about the rest of it.
Takeover last night was brilliant too if you didn't see it, the only match I didn't think much of was Dream vs ohno and that was hardly bad.
Grown men following pro wrestling?? You brits really need better pro sports.
if anything, I'm under-xagerating.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-...reasons-2017-5
That was just in the first week. Now we have the latest offering, and we're supposed to buy that. Ok, assuming that Comey was corrupt and that was the reason all along, why have all these conflicting stories about why he was fired?
At best, it suggests a WH that isn't even on the same page from the top down about even the most basic information; at worst it stinks of a deliberate spreading of misinformation.
Nope. The bulleted list at the top lists 3 reasons, and the first two are the same. Trump lost confidence in Comey. Rosenstein echoed those sentiments. That's two reasons. And they do not have to be mutually exclusive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
What latest offering? I speculated a plausible explanation as to why Trump lost confidence in Comey. That's not a new story, it's my own speculation about further details regarding the existing story.Quote:
That was just in the first week. Now we have the latest offering, and we're supposed to buy that
The stories do not conflict. Trump lost confidence in Comey. Why is it unfathomable to you that he is the only one who had that opinion? Maybe Comey was just shitty, and lots of people lost confidence in him. That would be a CONSISTENT story. Not a conflicting one.Quote:
Ok, assuming that Comey was corrupt and that was the reason all along, why have all these conflicting stories about why he was fired?
What misinformation? Explain how both explanations for Comey's firing can't be simultaneously true.Quote:
At best, it suggests a WH that isn't even on the same page from the top down about even the most basic information; at worst it stinks of a deliberate spreading of misinformation.
There are all kinds of reasons given in that article - recommendation from DoJ, poor handling of Hillary's email investigation, Russia investigation was a witch hunt, etc., that all changed depending on whether you were talking to Trump, Spicer, Rosenstein, or Sessions, and when.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
First it was Rosenstein's idea, then Trump's, then Trump's idea and Rosenstein and Sessions confirmed it. The only way those stories don't conflict is that they're all excuses to fire someone. Then Trump says in a letter to Comey "I'm doing this on the basis of their recommendation." and three days later tells Lester Holt it was all his idea and he was going to fire him all along. I mean the guy can't even keep his own story straight. No wonder he goes through so many press secretaries. They're all hurting their brain trying to explain all of his contradictory statements.
You can argue all of those reasons are true (and on top of it zomgFISA), and they just fucked up in how they presented it, but it doesn't matter. Comey was investigating Trump over Russia and Trump fired him. Can you at least acknowledge how bad that looks, and why it makes people suspicious of all these other explanations for the whys and hows? And then add to that the fact he tried to fire Mueller too?
Candice LeRae got to make her official NXT debut being scrappy as fuck. I love her.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Also, you neeeeeed to watch Tanahashi vs. Suzuki from night before last for the IC belt if you haven't. It was incredible.
Actually, I'm starting to think Trump just wants to fire everybody all the time, and maybe it has nothing to do with what they're up to.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...osenstein.html
No, just two.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Reason 1Quote:
recommendation from DoJ
Those are both supporting arguments for Reason #2: Trump lost confidence in Comey. That's a reason that demands supporting arguments. If you perceive those supporting arguments as "conflicting" accounts of events, then you're being stubborn, or stupid. Which is it Poop?Quote:
, poor handling of Hillary's email investigation, Russia investigation was a witch hunt,
No it didn't. Everyone except Trump himself towed the line on Reason #1Quote:
etc., that all changed depending on whether you were talking to Trump, Spicer, Rosenstein, or Sessions, and when.
Those stories absolutely do not conflict.Quote:
First it was Rosenstein's idea, then Trump's, then Trump's idea and Rosenstein and Sessions confirmed it. The only way those stories don't conflict is that they're all excuses to fire someone.
What's hard to understand? The Rosenstein memo gave Trump the official cover he needed to do what he wanted to do anyway. Trump bragging to Lester holt that he was smart enough to recognize Comey's incompetence without Rosensteins input doesn't conflict with any accounts of events, nor is it indicative of the slightest wrongdoing.Quote:
Then Trump says in a letter to Comey "I'm doing this on the basis of their recommendation." and three days later tells Lester Holt it was all his idea and he was going to fire him all along.
The do not contradict. Trump and Rosenstein agreeing with each other is not indicative of a conspiracy. You're delusional.Quote:
I mean the guy can't even keep his own story straight. No wonder he goes through so many press secretaries. They're all hurting their brain trying to explain all of his contradictory statements.
Apparently it matters very much to you, because it's a pillar of your assessment that Trump is corrupt.Quote:
You can argue all of those reasons are true (and on top of it zomgFISA), and they just fucked up in how they presented it, but it doesn't matter.
It only looks bad if you're willing to entertain wild theories of collusion without evidence. It only looks bad if you believe that Trump is dumb enough to believe that firing Comey would stop the Russia investigation. A guilty Trump firing Comey to stifle the Russia investigation simply doesn't hold water. There's no way Trump is that dumb. There's no way that someone wouldn't have explained it to him even if he was that dumb.Quote:
Comey was investigating Trump over Russia and Trump fired him. Can you at least acknowledge how bad that looks, and why it makes people suspicious of all these other explanations for the whys and hows?
Can you at least acknowledge that if Trump was guilty, he would do everything he could to avoid appearing so? Can you at least acknowledge that if Trump is actually innocent, then he must conclude that Comey's investigation is politically motivated, and therefore Comey can not be trusted? Can you at least acknowledge that in that circumstance, Comey has to go regardless of the optics??
But he ultimately didn't. Trump has done a lot of stuff that looked like political suicide, but somehow worked in his favor. I cringed when he claimed he wanted to ban all muslim immigration. Hard to not call that racist. But when taken in complete context, you could see that he wasn't expressing his views, he was merely opening negotiations.Quote:
And then add to that the fact he tried to fire Mueller too?
Trump cited some legitimate, and some not so legitimate conflicts that Meuller might have. The most compelling is that Meuller was denied the FBI job after Comey was fired. That's not just being turned down for a job. That's a man being denied the opportunity to reach the pinnacle of his life's work. It's not unfathomable that he might have an axe to grind.
Sure, it would have looked bad. But Trump has recovered easily from worse. So it's not nearly as stupid as you're making it sound. He says incendiary things and the media hates him. Despite that he won an election and logged a very successful first year. The guy has shown to be practically invincible. If he really didn't trust Mueller to not go witch-hunting, why wouldn't Trump think he could replace him.
Glad we agree on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
lol rousey, aka steph's buddyQuote:
Originally Posted by Savy
When these sources have names....then come talk to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Also, I need it explained to me how Trump firing Comey, or considering firing others, is an indication of his guilt.
If he was guilty, he would be doing everything possible to lay low, and AVOID the appearance of interference. The only way that's not the case is if he has the intelligence of a piece of toast. Anyone with an IQ of 9 would know that the optics of such a move would stir the pot, and it wouldn't end the investigation anyway.
On the other hand, if Trump is innocent, then he would know for sure that these people are engaged in a fruitless investigation. Whatever they are doing, it is not going to uncover any evidence of Russian collusion, because Trump knows for sure that he didn't collude with Russia. From Trump's point of view, whatever they are doing must be outside the scope of the investigation. Whatever they uncover must be the result of a witch hunt coordinated by the opposition. This theory is supported by the fact that anonymous sources are leaking suggestive, but ultimately meaningless, garbage in order to color the media discourse against Trump.
If you're Trump....are you just gonna let all that happen? Are you really gonna not-fire people because of lol-optics??
Trump's behavior seems to be strong evidence against the existence of Russian collusion, not the other way around. And I really can't believe that there are people in this world, and in this thread, who consider themselves intelligent, and still don't get this.
The Orange Ocular Effect. Since Trump is smart he can't have done anything stupid.
"anything's possible" is not a compelling reason to spend 2 years and triple-digit millions of tax payer dollars on a political stunt whose sole purpose is to undermine a duly elected president.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
I posed perfectly plausible explanations for the alleged impropriety, and I posed compelling and salient challenges to the theories of guilt.
The response: "your brain has been turned orange"
News Flash!!! That bullshit is WHY Trump won. So keep it up.
Quite enjoyed the PPV. Kami & AJ are all fantastic but that crying about authority storyline is getting a little boring and it's only leading to another sami v ko match I've seen too many times as much as I think they're both great. Only match that didn't really do anything for me was the raw tag match.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
It'll be interesting to see where the whole Rousey thing goes, seems strange that she was there but not in the rumble
Like sands through the hourglass.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Please tell me you didn't actually pay for this. What does it cost nowadays? $50 or $60 right?
When I was in college my friends and I would always make a big deal out of watching the PPV's, but one of my buddies had an illegal cable box that got it for free. We knew, even then, that fake fighting wasn't worth paying money to see.
Rousey signed a full-time deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Less than $10 a month for their entire library, including live PPVs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I guess you never watch movies or television shows like Game of Thrones.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Your explanations are only plausible on the assumption that Trump is innocent and has the capacity for some measure of self-control. Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find the rest of your arguments compelling.
Trump won because people accused his followers of being mindless sheep? Lol, ok then.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The alternate explanation assumes that Trump is guilty of collusion. It assumes that the man who has accumulated immense wealth, achieved celebrity status, and became a wildly successful politician is also monumentally stupid. It assumes that the living icon of business success fails to grasp public relations and political optics in ways that are obvious even to ordinary citizens. And it assumes that efforts to conceal his crime were undermined by an accidental confession to Lester Holt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Given the lack of evidence for these premises, there's no reason to find that version of events compelling.
Trump won because open minded independent thinkers were put off by being called mindless sheep whenever they deviated from the preferred progressive narrative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Actually, my present preferred hypothesis is that he doesn't like the investigation because it's going to turn up dirt on him that otherwise wouldn't come to light. Money-laundering with Russians is one possibility, given his history of shady dealings (Trump University being the classic example). The guy clearly hasn't been flying straight in his business life and he doesn't want to be investigated under any pretense.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
No, it assumes he lacks an internal censor and/or thinks he can get away with anything like he has his whole life.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
First, referring to yourself as open-minded may be being a bit generous. Of your ~1800 posts here, none of them have ever suggested there's much if any flexibility in your opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Second, if that is true of you, don't assume you're representative of his supporters.
Also, it 's just a lame argument to begin with. It's like saying the people who voted for Hillary did it 'cause they were sick of being called cucks. Iow, you're putting the cart before the horse.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You're missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If you're not for open borders, you're a racist.
If you don't support feminism (in its current militant form), you're a misogynist
If you're for tax cuts, you hate poor people
If you're in the middle class and you're upset about your health care costs going up 5,000%, you're an elitist.
If you're successful it's because you were unfairly privileged.
If you accept that the first amendment also applies to conservative messages, you're a fucking fascist.
And if you don't fall in line, you're hateful, selfish, entitled, and bigoted.
We had that for eight years under Obama, and it really started before that in the 90's under Clinton. And the people who got lumped into each group all had one thing in common.....they are the people who pay the bills in this country. Trump tapped into their anger and offered them a candidate who refused to be politically correct if it meant sacrificing sound capitalist policies.
Yet there are many many people on the left, still mindlessly marching in step with the progressive drumbeat of identity politics. And in a stunning example of irony, point to the opposition as 'mindless sheep' bowing to the manipulations of racists, misogynists, and the rest of the deplorables. That inability to engage in an intellectual fact-based debate has weakened the political message of the democratic party.
And that's how Trump got elected.
There's a pretty significant amount of evidence to support this.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sounds like you guys are real victims.
That still assumes that a very stable genius capable of the successes that Trump has enjoyed, is also stupid enough to ignore the fact that firing one guy wouldn't stop the investigation, and that it looks bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Whether he's guilty of Russian collusion, or of something else, it doesn't change the fact that he would have nothing to gain by firing Comey. It doesn't change the fact that firing Comey without a good reason would be stupid.
If that's the case, why is he so worried about Comey? Does not compute. He can't be simultaneously paranoid about the FBI investigation AND confident enough to confess on television.Quote:
No, it assumes he lacks an internal censor and/or thinks he can get away with anything like he has his whole life.
Try using facts or logic to change my mind, not the sensational speculations of failing newspapers.Quote:
First, referring to yourself as open-minded may be being a bit generous. Of your ~1800 posts here, none of them have ever suggested there's much if any flexibility in your opinions.
I'm white, male, middle class, educated, and my penis is huge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I am everything the left hates, and their war against me has finally come to an end.
So when Nixon did it, that proved he was too dumb to be president?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The left hates your penis? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Deputy FBI Director, and former acting Director Andrew McCabe took "terminal leave" today. Basically burning up all his vacation time before he's officially allowed to retire in March.
While he was investigating Hillary Clinton, Clinton and her allies donated some $700K to McCabe's wife's senate campaign.
And now a memo detailing corruption at the highest levels of law enforcement is set to be released and McCabe seems to be taking every precaution against getting fired and losing his benefits.
What's your "preferred hypothesis" on this one Poop?
You already know the facts so there's no point trying really.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
My hypothesis is you're trying to change the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You're being intentionally stubborn, or stupid here. That was not the same thing. Nixon's taped conversations were under subpeona, he really didn't have another play at that point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Trump was under no such pressure to fire Comey.
It's also worth noting that Nixon didn't have to contend with a 24 hour news cycle on 25 different TV stations and a deep state leaking his every move to the press. So he probably thought he could get away with it.
A guilty Trump could not make the same assumption. 1) He has less privacy than Nixon and 2) He can ask google "what happened when Nixon did this"?
Yes. Not trolling. Patriarchy! Fucking white males!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If Trump was guilty, what would be his play then? Wait for the inevitable subpoena and then start firing people?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Typical victim talk. Others hate you for what you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
If Trump was guilty, you would know by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
If Trump was guilty, his play would be to delay as much as possible. I assume, I don't know for sure because I'm not an arch-criminal. I assume his SOP would be to deflect attention from the investigation whenever possible. He seems to be doing the opposite. If Trump was guilty, then Mueller would still be waiting to talk to Bannon, Kushner, Spicer, Preibus, Sessions, and others.
EDIT: He would also be playing the "But Hillary was worse" card ALOT stronger. He could lock her up tomorrow if he really wanted to.
I thought we were done with the first subject. I was under the impression that our agreed upon conclusion is that I have the facts, and you just have crazy leftist conspiracies supported by nothing but wishful thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
First, we don't know what he's possibly guilty of. That's one thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Second, just because they don't find the smoking gun on day one or week one or year one of the investigation doesn't mean they have nothing and are just farting around wasting taxpayer money. Plenty of investigations take longer than this one and end up proving someone guilty. So sorry, but there's no time limit on how long they get to uncover the evidence, where if it takes longer than 'x' you get to conclude the person must be innocent.
How might he go about that? Assuming of course that's a good strategy. And in what way has he been doing the opposite?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Or it could be to try to discredit it in any way possible, which is exactly the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
How do you know he isn't? Also, what's your interpretation of Mueller wanting to interview Trump himself? Just wanting to shoot the breeze?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Ya because that's what every arch-criminal says - sure I'm a criminal but so-and-so was worse. Lock THEM up, not me! Lol, right.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Basically, your argument starts out with 'he's innocent' and tries to see everything through that prism. I'm not saying he's guilty, but you already have the case decided in your mind based on whatever theories happen to suit.
Let's just see what happens.
Sounds like more victim talk to me - oooh the left wing is trying to blame my president for something he didn't doooo...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Thank you for admitting that. That's the exact circumstance that results in a 'witch hunt'. If we don't know what he did, then why are we investigating? That's not how justice is supposed to work. You don't just get to say "I don't like this election result, go sniff up the ass of everyone involved and find out if we can put any of them in jail"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You kinda need the smoking gun, or at least a shred of evidence of some kind, in order to start the investigation. You can't go around initiating probes because you don't like someone. If that's not what happened, then how come the public hasn't heard a shred of evidence from this leaky investigation?Quote:
Second, just because they don't find the smoking gun on day one or week one or year one of the investigation doesn't mean they have nothing and are just farting around wasting taxpayer money.
Dude...that's a BAD THING. There is a reason cops aren't allowed to follow any one driver for more than a limited number of miles. If you follow someone long enough, you WILL find a reason to pull them over. The longer you dig, the more dirt you have on your hands. You can use circumstantial evidence and loose interpretations of obscure laws to indict anyone for anything.Quote:
Plenty of investigations take longer than this one and end up proving someone guilty.
There is no doubt in my mind that someone will end up arrested/indicted as a result of this investigation. There's no way Mueller is going to button this up without someone going down.
Sorry but this is woefully glib. The DOJ works for the public. They are spending the public's money seeking out justice on behalf of the public. The DO have some degree of accountability.Quote:
So sorry, but there's no time limit on how long they get to uncover the evidence, where if it takes longer than 'x' you get to conclude the person must be innocent.
Well, first of all, he wouldn't ever agree to talk to Mueller. Yet, he gave a press conference the other day saying he was eager for the meeting. He wouldn't be commenting to the press or tweeting anything about Russia, but he is doing the opposite. In fact, everything Trump is doing seems to suggest an impatience with the investigation. And by complaining about it, he's bringing the fact that it exists into the forefront of the media discourse.Quote:
How might he go about that? Assuming of course that's a good strategy. And in what way has he been doing the opposite?
We never heard this much about Hillary's emails. That was one they wanted swept under the rug. Notice the differences in how that was handled, and how Trump is handling this Russia situation. Whenever they asked Hillary about her emails, she had a canned, deflecting, non-answer response.
I see Trump making denials. And his comments discrediting the investigation are largely cliche (witch hunt, etc). If he wanted to discredit the investigation, he'd be using his power as president to decimate the FBI. There may be some bad optics involved, but I do believe that Trump could find a way to control the narrative just enough so as not to alienate his base of support. There is clearly more than just a little corruption going on at the FBI. If you want an example outside of this political arena....do some research into the FBI's relationship with Whitey Bulger.Quote:
Or it could be to try to discredit it in any way possible, which is exactly the opposite.
If you believe the government's preferred narrative that Zip Connolly was simply a rogue agent who turned dirty....you are in-fucking-sane.
Mueller has already talked to everyone I listed. He wouldn't talk to those people unless he was prepared to ask everything he could possibly want to ask. You don't get second chances at witnesses.Quote:
How do you know he isn't?
It is inevitable that the investigator would want to talk to the subject of the investigation. The fact that Mueller wants to talk to Trump is indicative of nothing other than Mueller was present for his "Detective 101" class.Quote:
Also, what's your interpretation of Mueller wanting to interview Trump himself? Just wanting to shoot the breeze?
But again, you don't get second chances at witnesses. And you usually don't go for the top dog until you're done with all the underlings. So if Mueller wants to talk to Trump, all it signifies is that his investigation is almost over. That's it.
Deflecting attention from your own crime would be a viable strategy, if you were a criminal. I would probably recommend leaving out the part where you say "sure I'm a criminal".Quote:
Ya because that's what every arch-criminal says - sure I'm a criminal but so-and-so was worse. Lock THEM up, not me! Lol, right.
Not exactly. I believe deeply in a system of justice that values the concept of "Innocent until Proven Guilty". So yes, my argument starts with "he's innocent". That's not politically motivated. Every single accused person should get the exact same blank slate. There was even a week or so in my early teens where I thought "OJ wouldn't do that, why would he fuck up being rich and famous just to stab some skank?"Quote:
Basically, your argument starts out with 'he's innocent' and tries to see everything through that prism.
Now I'm open to ANY evidence at all that proves, or at this point even implies guilt. But despite two years of this nonsense, despite volumes of surveillance collected illegally, despite close Trump allies having every reason to roll over on the President (Manafort), and despite an unprecedented level of leaks coming out of the justice department......I haven't seen a shred of anything linking Trump and Putin.
So I'm still kinda stuck on "he's innocent".
I haven't decided anything. I'm open to having my mind changed by facts, or evidence. What I've done in this thread is merely speculate about what would happen if Trump was guilty, and what would happen if he was innocent. And then try to match actual known events to each potential narrative.Quote:
I'm not saying he's guilty, but you already have the case decided in your mind based on whatever theories happen to suit.
I'll bet I can guess. Meuller uses some round-about silliness to accuse Trump of obstruction of Justice in relation to his asking Comey to go easy on Flynn. But it will be mild, and congress will not act. The logic being "how can it be real obstruction if there was no collusion? How can you obstruct an investigation into a non-event? Trump was just being business-man Trump when asking Comey to (appropriately) expediently dispense with a politically motivated investigation"Quote:
Let's just see what happens.
It will hang over Trump in 2020, but he'll likely brush it off like everything else. Because anyone who is really put off by the indictment was already prepared to vote against Trump, even if the dems nominated a Blender to be their candidate. And anyone already planning to vote on Trump will not be compelled by an obstruction charge that can be explained away so easily.
So in the end, it's all big fat nothingburger
lol i'm not fucking reading that. if you have a point to make, do it in 100,000 words or less. fucking hell.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Sorry, facts and logic usually require more words than sensational accusations and unsubstantiated theories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
More like you think everyone else is as fascinated in every last one of your opinions as you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You can't reason with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol, "waaah, he doesn't want to read your essay that probably just reiterates the same things you've been saying for days, with some insults thrown in for good measure."
Maybe we should change the name of this thread to "official right-wing crybaby pussy victims thread"
It gets angry when it hasn't had its nap.
You better have a nap then.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Women and pussies always argue in the same way:
I know you are, but what am I.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/29/people...fessor-claims/
We need to be tolerant and accepting of all different cultures.....
BUT ONLY INDIANS CAN DO YOGA!
Stop making yourself a victim.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Fine, but don't come cryin' to me when you get called out for watching Tyler Perry movies in a racist way.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Indian people using air conditioning supports brown supremacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
https://i.imgur.com/cQClv82.jpg
CUCK NYE BTFO
I'm sure you can appreciate that surviving thanks to the taxpayer is not good for one's sense of self worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
And yeah you can't just walk out of your job and claim benefits. You have to argue your position became untenable due to circumstances beyond your reasonable control, for example a cunt of a boss coupled with stress. Throw depression in if needs be. Just don't be stupid and admit you left because work sucks.
I won't quit though unless I have something else lined up, my new place is amazing and I can't afford it on benefits.
I have two log burners.
Two.
Good to hear.
I'm sincerely glad that you're making choices that are giving you a more enjoyable life man.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Dems want to end the use of the term "chain migration". Jackie Speier was on CNN this morning pushing the term "family reunification".
Confirmed cuck.
Family reunification in their own fucking country is more like it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Uniformed officer asked to leave 'gun-free' Outback Steakhouse because of service weapon
http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/20...ce-weapon.html
Let's just cater to the idiots.Quote:
Ward said the chain told him “there was another customer that was ‘scared for her life’ who was seated across” from the couple, and said “she was afraid because ‘police are shooting people.’”
According to Ward’s post, “This customer went on to demand to be escorted to her vehicle out of fear of being shot.”
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5727162690001/
Pretty cool how he completely ignores thatgirl'sperson's question
He's the President of Cuckistan.
https://i.imgur.com/juXNLjJ.jpg
Speaking of cucks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgQy70_LPS4
Watch the last 45-60 seconds. Idiot puts his hands on Ben Shapiro and threatens to put him in the hospital on Dr. Drew's show, and everyone defends the idiot threatening violence.
Shapiro doesn't even blink.
You trying to get put in the hospital bro?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
IkrQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Funny thing is, I didn't even do that on purpose.
Do you have a talk where you think Ben Sharpino is making good points? That guy seems like an easy target.
The points he was making in the show that short clip was from were fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/0...t-alleges.html
Emotional support animals have to be the cuck-iest thing happening in America today.
Even if everything this girl says is true.....I still don't see how she could be considering legal action against the airline.
People think that ESA's are the same as the service dogs that lead blind people through wal-mart. THEY'RE NOT.
The law protects services animals, not support animals. There is a legal distinction. Spread the word.
Just now got around to reading this:Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
HahaQuote:
A college student said she flushed her emotional support hamster down the toilet after Spirit Airlines refused to let her bring her furry pet on the plane.
did you see the follow up story??
That it's not rude to use the pronoun associated with someones biological sex when that's not the gender they identify as?Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Would you address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex?
Also why is he always so angry?
im on my phone so its too much of a pita to dig up the link. ill find it though.
basically her lawyers comments were stunningly ridiculous. something along the lines of 'an adult told her to flush it, so she did. how could she object...shes only a kid!!"
she was 21
and incidentally, pretty cute.
if being an adult means that hot 21 year olds will obey you unconditionally....then what am I doing wrong?????
not making a dating account that says "looking for young tight woman who thinks she's special and acts like she's special yet deep down knows she's not and just wants a big dick to set her straight."Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
with pic of rolled up sleeves and bulging forearms while mowing the lawn.
or something like that.
fuck i accidentally posted in this thread again
really gotta change the name
Funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
My actual dating profile isn't that far off. It's just the only four good pictures of me that exist and a profile that reads "Hell of a guy".
Then, my opening line to every single woman is "Whoa, there she is"
It works.
No. His point (which he stated almost verbatim, so I'm confused as to why you missed it) was that your feelings do not determine whether you are male or female. Your chromosomes do.Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
I would address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex, which is what pronouns are associated with anyway by definition, in plenty of cases. There are also some cases where I'll refer to someone as the incorrect pronoun to be polite, but I never non-standard pronouns, and I never will.
Your last question is typical of certain significant sections of the left and is completely irrelevant.
Well the way he said it verbatim was not debatable. He said your biological sex determines your biological sex, when obviously everyone is talking about gender identification. I did not miss that. I found it to be completely irrelevant.Quote:
No. His point (which he stated almost verbatim, so I'm confused as to why you missed it) was that your feelings do not determine whether you are male or female. Your chromosomes do.
How do you even do that? How do you determine the biological sex of the person you're talking to? Do you ask for blood samples? But that's not perfect either because there are women with a y chromosome, so you'd have to go by genitals. That seems hardly practical.Quote:
I would address a transgender person with the pronoun associated with their biological sex,
This is all rhetorical nonsense. You identify the gender of a person by the way they dress and behave. You wouldn't think for a second: I hope I'm using the biologically correct pronoun here. You'd use the one that's overtly obvious, and that one has nothing to do with the genitals or the chromosomes of that person.
Oh cmon now. You see a little person in a yarmulke getting all riled up about knobs and you're not going to say anything? This seems a lot more to ask than to call a man in a wig 'her'.Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow