*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

It says that. Fucking read it.

Quote:

---

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

---

You say "ratings whore" alot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

https://i.gifer.com/C42.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

It says that. Fucking read it.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You say "ratings whore" alot

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

where did you get this idea??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

Source?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Attachment 1114

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

Nowhere in the MSM, that's the problem.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

Not "openly" bias huh? Sounds totally legit.

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


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

Of course you do.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

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

Quote:

---

I ignore that.

---

No you don't

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

No you don't

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Attachment 1115

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

"shut up" he explained

Quote:

---

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

---

Is it really 99 to 1? Citation needed.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

Just explaining how the world works, grasshopper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

"shut up" he explained

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Is it really 99 to 1? Citation needed.

---

How much do you think it is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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


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

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

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

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

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

"Shut up" he explained

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

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

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

3) What evidence of intent do you find compelling?

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

1. Trying to fire Mueller.

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

2. Ordering McGahn to fire Mueller.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

Are you fucking high?

Fun question...

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

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

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

Hint: it doesn't say that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT'S NOT A CRIME TO LIE TO THE PRESS

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

and then subsequently ordering McGahn not to.

---

Only when McGahn threatened to resign.

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

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

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Are you fucking high?

---

No.

Next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Attachment 1116

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

"Shut up" he explained

ok bud, here's a more digestable tidbit.

Explain to me how lying to the press = obstructing justice

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

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

Why don't you Poop?

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

Attachment 1117

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

I've heard your arguments

---

And the cognitive dissonance almost broke your spleen.

Quote:

---

, you've heard mine.

---

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

Quote:

---

Repeating them back and forth is pointless.

---

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

Quote:

---

Move on bud. Find something else to be wrong about

---

"Shut up" he explained.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

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

---

flaccid opposition.

Allegation 3: Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation

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

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

Question: Why are emotions crimes?

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

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

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

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

Allegation 7: Trump continued to pressure Sessions to unrecuse himself.

Question: Why is it obstruction if you ask someone you like to do the job that you hired them to do? Mueller even quotes Trump on this:

Quote:

---

“I’m not going to do anything or direct you to do anything. I just want to be treated fairly”

---

Where is the obstruction?

Allegation 8: Trump didn’t want the public to know he had “directed McGahn to have the Special Counsel removed in June 2017 and that McGahn had threatened to resign rather than carry out the order. “

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

flaccid opposition.

---

He's his own best opposition.

Anyone > Hillary will beat him imo. The only question is whether the Ds will put that up.

Allegation 9: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over

Question: who commits a crime in front of 50 million twitter followers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

He's his own best opposition.

Anyone > Hillary will beat him imo. The only question is whether the Ds will put that up.

---

You already know who they have. Name someone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Allegation 9: Trump praised former campaign manager Paul Manafort and Flynn when they held strong and criticized them when they rolled over

Question: who commits a crime in front of 50 million twitter followers?

---

You're right, only a criminal retard would do that.

Allegation 10: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.

Question: Why are Flynn and Manafort grouped together in one line item, but Cohen gets his own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

You already know who they have. Name someone

---

All of them, with the possible exception of Warren.

Ask me the same question a few more times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Allegation 10: Trump praised his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen when he held strong and criticized him after he rolled over.

Question: Why are Flynn and Manafort grouped together in one line item, but Cohen gets his own?

---

Is this a legal question or a clerical one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

All of them, with the possible exception of Warren.

Ask me the same question a few more times.

---

Explain to me what thought process might have led a person to vote for Trump in 2016, but not in 2020?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Is this a legal question or a clerical one?

---

What you're saying here is that you don't have an answer to any of the questions. Which means that there is nowhere near enough evidence for any of those things to constitute a crime.

Tell me....how the fuck does a prosecutor accumulate ten pieces of evidence...but no charges. WTF!!??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What you're saying here is that you don't have an answer to any of the questions. Which means that there is nowhere near enough evidence for any of those things to constitute a crime.

Tell me....how the fuck does a prosecutor accumulate ten pieces of evidence...but no charges. WTF!!??

---

Haha. You want another lesson on the consititution? Maybe with sock puppets this time?

If Trump had the legal and constitutional authority to end the investigation....
If Trump had the authority to issue instructions about where the investigation could or could not go....
If Trump could have fired Mueller at any time......
If Trump could have claimed executive privilege......


Then why in the world would he obstruct justice? Why would he even try to commit a crime if he could just solve his problems legally. WTF??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Explain to me what thought process might have led a person to vote for Trump in 2016, but not in 2020?

---

Hmm, interesting question. What are the thought processes that might lead a person who watched Trump be president for four years think he's actually qualified for the job?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

If Trump had the legal and constitutional authority to end the investigation....
If Trump had the authority to issue instructions about where the investigation could or could not go....
If Trump could have fired Mueller at any time......
If Trump could have claimed executive privilege......


Then why in the world would he obstruct justice? Why would he even try to commit a crime if he could just solve his problems legally. WTF??

---

Two words: Criminal Retard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Haha. You want another lesson on the consititution? Maybe with sock puppets this time?

---

What, is this where you give me a lecture about not being able to indict a sitting president? Funny how you're suddenly an expert on something you only started agreeing with this week. But anyway...even if Mueller's hands are tied with Trump, he names other people in those allegations. Lewandowski, Sessions, McGahn. Don Jr. Trump can't lie to the press by himself. If obstruction happened, and those people are involved....why aren't they arrested? Surely there is no constitutional restriction against indicting Corey Lewandowski.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What, is this where you give me a lecture about not being able to indict a sitting president? Funny how you're suddenly an expert on something you only started agreeing with this week. But anyway...even if Mueller's hands are tied with Trump, he names other people in those allegations. Lewandowski, Sessions, McGahn. Don Jr. Trump can't lie to the press by himself. If obstruction happened, and those people are involved....why aren't they arrested? Surely there is no constitutional restriction against indicting Corey Lewandowski.

---

Because none of them followed his orders. You can't get in trouble for refusing an order to break the law. That's pretty much the opposite of breaking the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Hmm, interesting question. What are the thought processes that might lead a person who watched Trump be president for four years think he's actually qualified for the job?

---

One one side there are raging leftists who want to eliminate your private health insurance, take over private industry, tax 70%, and tell you that men are women.

On the other side is a vulgarian who isn't doing any of those things.

No contest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Because none of them followed his orders. You can't get in trouble for refusing an order to break the law. That's pretty much the opposite of breaking the law.

---

Sarah Sanders followed his orders and lied to the press. Don Jr was at least complicit in the Trump tower cover up. Lewandowski did talk to Sessions. It was Sessions that refused. But Lewandowski followed orders.

Why aren't these people in jail for obstructing justice??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What, is this where you give me a lecture about not being able to indict a sitting president? Funny how you're suddenly an expert on something you only started agreeing with this week.

---

I never gave an opinion on whether it was legally possible to indict a sitting president. I don't even have one. I wish they could but I can see why they wouldn't want to. You're just trying to reductio ad bananum me here into another argument that exists only in your imagination.

Further, the reference to the constitution is only relevant insofar as how Mueller sees it, not me or you or Rudy Guiliani, which makes arguing about it even more pointless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Sarah Sanders followed his orders and lied to the press. Don Jr was at least complicit in the Trump tower cover up. Lewandowski did talk to Sessions. It was Sessions that refused. But Lewandowski followed orders.

Why aren't these people in jail for obstructing justice??

---

Was Sarah Sanders obstructing justice? I don't recall that allegation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

One one side there are raging leftists who want to eliminate your private health insurance, take over private industry, tax 70%, and tell you that men are women.

On the other side is a vulgarian who isn't doing any of those things.

No contest.

---

Amazing the Ds won the midterms isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Was Sarah Sanders obstructing justice? I don't recall that allegation.

---

She told Mueller that she didn't exactly know why Trump fired Comey after she told the press that it was because Trump had lost faith in the FBI director.

And you can't keep dodging the question. Mueller names people other than DJT as complicit or cooperative in these efforts to obstruct justice.. Why aren't those people in jail?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Amazing the Ds won the midterms isn't it?

---

It's kind of amazing that they're going to blow it. Trump should actually be pretty easy to beat. But the D's are stuck with a raging social justice fringe that pretty much OWNS the party.

Nobody actually wants a green new deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

She told Mueller that she didn't exactly know why Trump fired Comey after she told the press that it was because Trump had lost faith in the FBI director.

And you can't keep dodging the question. Mueller names people other than DJT as complicit or cooperative in these efforts to obstruct justice.. Why aren't those people in jail?

---

You have to show they were intending to OJ when they did their thing. SHS was just talking shit on a podium which is pretty much her job. They aren't even her own words lol. She wasn't actively complicit in some effort to obstruct the MI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

You have to show they were intending to OJ when they did their thing.

---

I do? Mueller does? Funny, he didn't seem to provide a single shred of evidence demonstrating DJT's intent on any of those 10 allegations. Why is Trump held to a different standard? Why are Trump's intentions suspect?

Quote:

---

SHS was just talking shit on a podium

---

See Allegation 4. Trump was just talking shit on Twitter. What's the difference??

Quote:

---

She wasn't actively complicit in some effort to obstruct the MI

---

How do you know? Sounds like shes not-not-guilty to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

I do? Mueller does? Funny, he didn't seem to provide a single shred of evidence demonstrating DJT's intent on any of those 10 allegations.

---

Intention is impossible to prove conclusively, it can only be inferred from a behaviour or pattern of behaviour.

SHS's intention was most likely to be a lying shill for the POTUS. Her behaviour was entirely consistent with her role in the WH. That doesn't mean she deliberately sought to OJ of her own accord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Why is Trump held to a different standard?

---

He isn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Why are Trump's intentions suspect?

---

Because he's the one who stands to gain. Because it's less important if the PS lies to do her job of being a liar than if the POTUS lies to OJ of an investigation into his possible traitorous activities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Because he's the one who stands to gain. Because it's less important if the PS lies to do her job of being a liar than if the POTUS lies to OJ of an investigation into his possible traitorous activities.

---

So the press secretary's job is to be a liar, but the POTUS's job isn't.

Are you 5 years old?

Here's some questions for you:

Is it worse to lie to OJ into a criminal investigation about you or to lie to your auntie that you like her new hairdo? Why is one worse than the other?

If someone tells you something and you repeat it, then later it's proven to be false, does that mean you've obstructed justice by lying?

If you're given a choice of voting in a criminal retard for four more years and a less-criminal, more intelligent person, who would you choose and why?

If someone believes they aren't allowed to conclude A, and they conclude nothing instead, does that mean that A is false?

What do you think the 2nd amendment means? Should you be allowed to carry a hand grenade on your person?

Is it possible to build an impregnable barrier along a country's border?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So the press secretary's job is to be a liar, but the POTUS's job isn't.

Are you 5 years old?

---

yes I am, you're losing an argument to a five year old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

"Shut up" he explained....

---

If you don't think that russia interfered in the 2016 election because it doesn't meet your standards of proof, but you think that Clinton (I don't know which one) is a rapist... that is something pathological. You can't at the same time have insane standards of proof against your position but then hop on every kind of conspiracy theory against who you perceive as the other side. Same with language. Trump can say whatever he wants and you'll defend it, but if Obama and Clinton say "easter worshippers," that is somehow sign of a grand conspiracy and a very bad thing.

Do you really think you're being consistent here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poopadoop

Intention is impossible to prove conclusively, it can only be inferred from a behaviour or pattern of behaviour.

---

So politicians have been lying to the press since the press was invented. Is that a pattern of behavior? What should we do with all the people who fit that pattern of behavior?

Is there any reason to single one of them out for special prosecution for OOJ for doing the same thing every other politician has ever done?

Help me understand why lying to the press, 3 of Mueller's 10 accusations, is an impeachable offense?

And if you don't stop being a tool, I'll call in my big sister who is eight and she'll really clean your clock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

So politicians have been lying to the press since the press was invented. Is that a pattern of behavior? What should we do with all the people who fit that pattern of behavior?

Is there any reason to single one of them out for special prosecution for OOJ for doing the same thing every other politician has ever done?

Help me understand why lying to the press, 3 of Mueller's 10 accusations, is an impeachable offense?

---

Answer my questions first. All of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

Oh, FFS.
"What Does an Attorney General Do?



The attorney general holds the power of attorney in representing a government in all legal matters."
https://people.howstuffworks.com/gov...y-general1.htm

law, law, law, legal, legal, legal, law, law, law, legal, legal, legal....
What do you think that means?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

Yes. How silly of me to believe what every lawyer who understands this corner of law agrees with.
You're the one who swallowed the media pabulum into believing that collusion is anything but a diversion and distraction.
Your assertion that a law agency was tasked to investigate legal activities is not a very smart position to hold.

Conspiracy is a crime. Any evidence that Trump colluded is inconsequential. If whatever he did falls below the threshold of criminal behavior, then there shouldn't be any bearing on this presidency. If he committed acts of conspiracy, then that's the opposite.

The MR cleared him of all counts of conspiracy, so fine. dead end.
However, during the course of the investigation, there's a lot of appearances of OoJ going on... and the MR plainly does not clear him of those apparent crimes.
Whether or not his polling is affected is a political matter, not a legal one. Whether or not he gets re-elected is a political matter, not a legal one.

You can talk political prognostication all you like, but it's just hot air. If we're talking legal facts on the ground, then that's another matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

Funny how all those people being all ragey about collusion never once accused him of conspiracy... which bears similarities to collusion, but which, importantly, is a crime.

Spoiler: Show

Conspiracy is a crime. Collusion is not.

You want to be all ragey at people who play the ragey game, then that's your real angle, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

This whole thing was born because people some mouth-frothing idiots with a wide audience truly believed blew smoke up that audience's asses that Trump made an illicit (but legal) deal with the Russians, not necessarily because anyone cared that he committed a crime (they just cared about selling a narrative that would increase their ratings).

---

An accusation of conspiracy... that holds weight... has legal ramifications... could be considered defamation of character if it's wrong.

An accusation of collusion? a legal activity? They can dress that up as if they're really talking about conspiracy without ever saying conspiracy and watch that audience work themselves up into a ratings-building froth.


For someone who seems to be aware of bias, you're missing a huge point.
Sometimes the same lie benefits both sides' ratings. Just because there's overlap doesn't mean there's truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

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

---

Again... how can you be so, so bad at getting me. I mean... I'd wanna know... 'cause that sounds hella fun, and I'd be stoked to see Trump's old ass tossing a watermelon off the roof of any building... especially if he had a big, dumb smile on his face and his hair was all fucked and he just didn't care 'cause he was having fun doing something silly.

That I can relate to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

If you don't think that russia interfered in the 2016 election because it doesn't meet your standards of proof,

---

I didn't say this. I asked you to define "interfered"

Quote:

---

but you think that Clinton (I don't know which one) is a rapist..

---

Juanita Broderick has a credible story, and no reason to lie. I'm not saying that Clinton should be charged with anything. I probably only brought this up to point out the hypocrisy being demonstrated by people who don't even know Broderick's name, but think that saying "grab her by the pussy" is a confession of sexual assault.

Quote:

---

You can't at the same time have insane standards of proof against your position but then hop on every kind of conspiracy theory against who you perceive as the other side

---

Citation please? This is extremely vague.

Quote:

---

Same with language. Trump can say whatever he wants and you'll defend it

---

Provably false

Quote:

---

but if Obama and Clinton say "easter worshippers," that is somehow signs of a grand conspiracy and a very bad thing.

---

Dude...come back to the real world. If you think that that political operatives don't work to distribute talking points to prominent democrats in order to homogenize the message and promote party unity....you're living in outer space. The RNC does the same thing. And it's actually not a very bad thing. Just acknowledge that it happens ok? No one is asking you to wear a foil hat.

But....to use MMM's phrasing.....I think it's "interesting" that the coordinate effort (which most definitely does exist) chose to exclude the word "Christian" or "catholic" and replace it with "Easter Worshipers". That's actually really fucking weird.

Quote:

---

Do you really think you're being consistent here?

---

I'll consider that question if you can show an inconsistency. So far, they only exist in your imagination.

Since we're talking about the Mueller report, it is safe to assume I use it to describe russian election interference as it is described in the Mueller report.
Why would I define words for you? I'm not a dictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Oh, FFS.
"What Does an Attorney General Do?

---

Mueller is not the Attorney General. He is a special counsel.

Quote:

---

law, law, law, legal, legal, legal, law, law, law, legal, legal, legal....
What do you think that means?

---

I think its probably good if the Attorney General goes to law school. What's relevant about this? Mueller is not the attorney general, he is special counsel.

Quote:

---

Your assertion that a law agency was tasked to investigate legal activities is not a very smart position to hold.

---

A "law agency"? What's that? And you can just google the document man. I keep telling you. Mueller was never limited to investigating only illegal activities. Everything Trump did with the Russians, legal or not, was fair game.

Quote:

---

Conspiracy is a crime.

---

Alight....I'll humor this for a bit. What's the difference counselor?

Quote:

---

If whatever he did falls below the threshold of criminal behavior, then there shouldn't be any bearing on this presidency.

---

THIS IS WRONG

Even I know this. If Trump put his own interests above the country's while making an illicit agreement with the Russian government, then that should have a bearing on his presidency. If he said "No, I won't arm Ukraine if you give me Podesta's emails" it's a problem. It's not illegal to do that. It's not a crime. It's just a fucking problem. If you don't get that....don't vote anymore please.

Collusion is relevant. And it was exactly the focus of the MR. Any assertion to the contrary is positively insane. If Trump sold his country out to get a building permit in Moscow...Mueller would have told us, even if the "collusion" was not criminal. That was his job. We wanted him to find out if Trump was secretly in debt, financially or diplomatically, to the Russians, if he was vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians, if any of his policies were coerced or prompted by the Russians, etc.

None of those things would be crimes. But they would be in the MR if they happened. And if they happened, Trump would not be president for much longer.

Quote:

---

I mean... I'd wanna know... 'cause that sounds hella fun, and I'd be stoked to see Trump's old ass tossing a watermelon off the roof of any building... especially if he had a big, dumb smile on his face and his hair was all fucked and he just didn't care 'cause he was having fun doing something silly.

---

I can't take you seriously anymore. If the POTUS suffered from acute onset dementia, that would be a tragedy for the country. And if it occurred as the result of a partisan hoax.....it's a tragedy for democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/23/u...es-of-war.html
https://www.military.com/daily-news/...ar-crimes.html

Making america great by openly supporting war criminals who execute kids! No, but wait, it's ok! The girl wore a hijab!

---

I'll repost this because I think it's important. That's the type of story that gets buried under the impeachment talks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Since we're talking about the Mueller report, it is safe to assume I use it to describe russian election interference as it is described in the Mueller report.
Why would I define words for you? I'm not a dictionary.

---

Fine...I'll ask a different way. What specific acts of interference are you talking about?

Fake news facebook ads?? The largest estimate I've ever heard on this is $130K in ad-buys. I know the CEO of google testified to congress that they sold $4k worth of ads. Almost $2B was spent between teh two candidates on the 2016 election. It doesn't count as interference if it's ineffective.

If you're talking about Podesta and DNC emails.....so what?

You think foreign countries should be allowed to buy ads for US political campaigns secretly as long as it doesn't exceed a certain value? How much do you think is reasonable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

I'll repost this because I think it's important.

---

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

The military has a court martial process and it's own way of enforcing justice. That seems to be working as intended.

What exactly is your beef?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

You think foreign countries should be allowed to buy ads for US political campaigns secretly as long as it doesn't exceed a value of... how much do you think is reasonable?

---

No I don't think that. I'm just saying if it happens and has no effect, I'm not going to shit my pants over it.

The tech companies and FEC should get on top of that. I don't see what it has to do with Trump

The president is asking for leniency for someone who executed a kid. Given his history with muslims it sure looks like he doesn't think it's a big deal to execute kids as long as "these aren't people, these are animals"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

The president is asking for leniency for someone who executed a kid.

---

Until you've been to war, shut up. Let the people who have been to war judge him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

The military has a court martial process and it's own way of enforcing justice. That seems to be working as intended.

What exactly is your beef?

---

So you didn't read the story, or you think burying the case and threatening everyone who knows about it not to talk about it is "working as intended"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Until you've been to war, shut up. Let the people who have been to war judge him.

---

Do you think it's ok to kill the children of your enemy in a war?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oskar

Do you think it's ok to kill the children of your enemy in a war?

---

Not enough information to make a determination

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

It's not. You have no fucking idea what happens in a warzone so you're actually way out of line criticizing anything anyone does on active duty unless you've been there.

---

Being in a warzone doesn't mean you get to indiscriminately shoot anyone walking around, little girls and old men included.

If his own men reported him, why do you think that is? They were democrats?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

What exactly is your beef?

---

Did you see the Trump tweet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSpoonald

Not enough information to make a determination

---

What a sad pussy of an answer.