InsanityQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Printable View
InsanityQuote:
Originally Posted by oskar
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by oskar
Protectionism 101.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
$29 billion in 2017. Ruh Roh!Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The gov't has the power to levy taxes. What are you missing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sounds like the richer country should win every time. Easy game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Yes but usually one nation has more to lose than the other... that is, one always has the upper hand.
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?'.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You really live on fancy street don't you?
Nice crosspost.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Try again. Both countries lose through the hindrance of trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
Let me explain this to you slowly...Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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"
You sound like TrumpQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Because it suits us. Their labour is cheaper, so that's basically their export.Quote:
Then why have free trade agreements with poorer countries?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
You could have free migration without free trade. Easy to keep them separate.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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?Quote:
It costs the consumer more
Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
The consumer. Next question?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
But not the economy. And a stronger economy benefits the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
So you agree with me now that tariffs are stupid in principle?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You know what benefits the individual consumer even more than a strong economy? Having more money to spend.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Not if that money doesn't buy as much. A weak economy will mean high inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
AlotQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
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?
$29 Billion dollars?Quote:
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.
Would you rather have $2 where a can of coke is $1, or $2.50 where a can of coke is $1.50?
Gimme a number. I know numbers are hard for you so I'll make it multiple choice: 10%, 25%, 50%?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Lol when Pence is president...Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Where are you getting the extra .50 from? It's not like you're saving money on the things the tariffs are put on.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You mean like the high inflation we had in the weak economy from 2008 onwards? Is basically stagnant the same as high inflation now?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Or do you mean inflation that results from prices going up, as in, say, a trade war?
Wanna guess what remittances are doing to inflation in Mexico?
How's the peso doin'?
Any of the above. I really don't care. Why is it important?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Lol when Pence is president...
I'm not even going to begin to explain to you how stupid this is. I suspect you already knowQuote:
Every Mexican has $29 billion dollars that he sends back to Mexico?
Have you been seeing any of that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.
I'd say the short term economic impact is insufficient to understand this system.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
You changed your mind about the Mueller investigation?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Oh yeah, :p
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
And you have consistently been hand waving while making these baseless assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Lucky for us I ain't Adamsing.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
We don't know what Mueller is doing, but we know what he is not doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
More like 'some of want to believe Muller is doing something other than what it looks like he is doing.'Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It looks like he's trying to get himself firedQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Whatever you want to call your hand waving.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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.
Manafort has not flipped. What does that tell you?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
You could be right that either he and his team are "hardened democrats"
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.Quote:
all the things you find suspicious are actually hallmarks of a well run operation that is trying to find the truth
How exactly can you spin these things into "hallmarks of a well run operation"
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?Quote:
but also cognisant that a wrong step could end the quest for the truth prematurely.
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
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.
It is very possible that Mueller is trying to do exactly what he looks like he's doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
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.
That's good to hear. Argument doesn't help anybody. My goal is to understand others and have them understand me.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Really the main change I have made is that I don't argue anymor
Wuf's just the best.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
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?Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
He's got some gamble in him-- this is readily apparent from his bio.Quote:
Manafort has not flipped. What does that tell you?
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.Quote:
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.
Neither Flynn nor Popadopolous seem to think the cases against them are either dubious or flimsy.Quote:
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.
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.
I don't think any spin is necessary.Quote:
How exactly can you spin these things into "hallmarks of a well run operation"
Nope, not sure how you made that leap.Quote:
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,
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.Quote:
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?
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.
He is.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
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.
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, lol@reading this right after making a point by point reply to Banana :-\
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.
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.
Trump will be on TV any minute to tell the world that he intends to start WW3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poz6W0znOfkQuote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/18...s-mueller.html
I'm starting to seriously think that it might be time to start hoarding canned goods, bottled water, and ammunition. Whether Mueller moves to indict Trump, or whether Trump fires Mueller...either way the reaction will be massive, widespread, and violent.
It's gonna be bad.
Why do you think Trump hired Mueller? Why do you think he hasn't fired him at any of the points where it would have been easily justified? Why do you think Trump hasn't given Mueller a Forever Name?Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
He didn't. Rosenstein did.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Because 1) he can't, only Rosenstein can; and 2) every other day he sees Dershowitz on Fox News telling him it would be a bad idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Maybe he's saving it for the trial. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The Reality TV President has got the audience looking at exactly what he wants them to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Because he's an egomaniac unfamiliar enough with DC politics to believe that Mueller would dig into the facts, expediently find nothing, and exonerate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Because Mueller hasn't exonerated him yet.Quote:
Why do you think he hasn't fired him at any of the points where it would have been easily justified?
He's waiting until he can dub him "Exonerator"Quote:
Why do you think Trump hasn't given Mueller a Forever Name?
When was it ever "easily justified"? If we found out that THIS GUY was really Mueller in disguise, Trump still couldn't fire him 'easily'.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I recall a few times big news breaking that showed Mueller had nothing. Trump would talk about firing him but not going through it. Then the days would go by and people would forget that Mueller has nothing on Trump until some new drama would fabricate.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
I find this a credible point of view. A credible interpretation is that Trump is acting way too arrogantly here. Or stupidly (more like inexperienced in this specific domain).Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
Honestly I don't even disagree with the view. I'm not sure what I think is more likely: the Trump admin is investigating other crimes with Mueller as a smokescreen or an aid, or if the Trump admin is using Mueller to get exonerated....or a third option, that the Trump admin is using it as a way to control the news cycle and get things done behind the scene. Each of these have >0 probability, and there is some overlap between them.
It's the idea that the Trump administration is legitimately investigating itself that has near non-existent credibility. The slimest sliver of credibility it has emerges from the belief that Trump and his administration is beyond incompetent, which doesn't stack up to the evidence (yet does stack up to the hallucinations of Trump Derangement Syndrome).
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Do you think Nixon was investigating himself too? How about Bill Clinton?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Explain how this is different.
Wuf, you're fixated on this idea that the administration is a singular entity no matter the level of zoom. It is a bit less hierarchical than you seem to think. We don't have an autocracy, and that's a good thing.
If you step back from this very rigid idea that the executive branch doesn't deviate from a pure hierarchy, I think the probabilities you assign to all the possible things Mueller is up to will shift dramatically.
It can certainly be the case that Mueller thinks he is up to stuff. Indeed I think it's very likely that Mueller thinks he's investigating Trump in good faith. And it's what his bosses -- Trump, Sessions, and Rosenstein -- and the boss of the latter two -- Trump -- think that also matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
Perhaps you are right that I'm not thinking enough about what Mueller is thinking. And you're not thinking enough about what Trump is thinking. What do you think Trump is thinking/doing? Why do you think that a man that works closely with Trump and that Trump has direct firing power of hired Mueller the very next day that Trump interviewed him? Why do you think Trump has not used any of his usual tactics to stop something to stop the supposed Mueller investigation? Why do you think Trump's very close friend, Sessions, "sits back" while his employee supposedly tries to destroy his close friend and boss? Why do you think Mueller is still around even though nothing tying Trump to a crime has come to pass, many times of which there were lengths in which the Mueller's political capital was paltry? What do you think the Reality TV President would do in this situation?
Congress made that happen. A crime had been committed and Congress was adamant in making sure it was investigated properly. Nixon couldn't stop it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
The current situation is nothing of the sort. No crime has been identified and Congress is not pushing for anything. This "investigation" comes from the choice of Trump, Sessions, and Rosenstein.
Wasn't that a Congress thing too?Quote:
How about Bill Clinton?
Ya laugh and yet here we are, still nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
You know what, screw that. Just look at the facts, remember them across all relevant domains.
Someday, someone on Mueller's team is gonna write a book about what Mueller was really thinking. That's gonna be an interesting book.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I still say that Trump is just holding out for the big payoff. Mueller holds a press conference and says "Trump is clean". The fact that Mueller has gone so far beyond his intended scope has got to be infuriating to Trump. Mueller should have reached the end by now and had that fucking press conference.Quote:
Why do you think Trump has not used any of his usual tactics to stop something to stop the supposed Mueller investigation?
If this were Trump's second term, Mueller would be gone already. Not only gone, but fired in disgrace followed by weeks of developing news about Mueller's fetishes for Portuguese hotel maids and vodka enemas. But since Trump has to be re-elected he can't risk that. He would be giving the "trump is a fascist dictator" critics exactly what they want. He'll get BURIED in a debate if the other person can keep saying "If you're innocent, why didn't you let them finish the investigation?" He'll lose too many republicans on that talking point alone.
Ah, but a crime has been committed here as well. Also the investigation was underway before Trump took over afaik, and Rosenstein's hiring of Mueller was in direct response to the Comey firing.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sure, Trump can do his own version of the Saturday Night Massacre if he wants the whole thing to go away. But that won't make it go away.
Oh please.....tell me a storyQuote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Don't confuse 'nothing has been made public' with 'nothing has been found'. One doesn't necessarily follow from the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
And what exactly do you expect from Mueller, daily updates on who's being looked at and what evidence was uncovered lately? Keeping secrets from suspected parties is paramount to having a proper investigation.
Don't confuse "nothing has been found" with "a crime has been committed here"Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...egal-team.html
Mayor time!Quote:
Giuliani,..... told The Washington Post that he joined the team with the intent of bringing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe to a conclusion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...ler-probe.html
Hmmm, I'm gonna bet on the 'over' on this one....Quote:
It shouldn’t take more than “a week or two” to come to a resolution on the probe, Giuliani said.
What crime has been committed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Mueller was not tasked with investigating Trump or anyone narrowly.
Russia interfered with our election. There is enough evidence that Americans may have assisted them to investigate this claim. Some of these Americans are associates of Trump/the Trump campaign.
Sessions and Trump are not close friends by any reasonable measure.
The Mueller/Trump Interview is interesting-- It's not crazy that a person would be on the short list of candidates for both positions. There's a lot of overlap.
Trumps "usual tactics" are a form of bullying. It's the same reason you don't see him using these tactics with Putin. Similar reason at least-- Putin is a much more seasoned bully, Mueller is relatively impervious to his bullying because of the structuring of his position and Mueller, unlike Trumps other targets is capable of hitting back in a meaningful way.
Sessions recused himself, presumably under the good advice of career DOJ staffers-- possibly under the advice of his former colleagues in congress. Even if he wanted to play an active role in protecting Trump, that path is fraught with all sorts of danger, political, legal, legacy, etc.
I don't think Mueller's political capital since being appointed to his current position can ever be said to be "paltry."
In what situation are we talking? The one that is reasonably reflective of reality? I think he would do just what we see him doing-- becoming agitated, flailing about, attempting to distract. He may prevail, he may be innocent, but he certainly is in a tough spot with no easy ways out.
Oh, also, why are you keeping up this charade after the FBI/DOJ raided Cohen's office/home/etc and seized decades of records? This is all for show? A judge signed a warrant for a raid of an attorney's records-- wait, not an attorney, that's telling enough, but not just any attorney, the Presidents personal attorney-- because...?
What is the evidence of crime?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
What are the facts? Is Rosenstein stating that Cohen was not raided in relation to Trump a fact?Quote:
Oh, also, why are you keeping up this charade after the FBI/DOJ raided Cohen's office/home/etc and seized decades of records? This is all for show? A judge signed a warrant for a raid of an attorney's records-- wait, not an attorney, that's telling enough, but not just any attorney, the Presidents personal attorney-- because...?