Trump Is Reality TV, Mueller Is The Wire

[BananaStand]

Banana, your last post is really good,

they all are

and I think it makes total sense once you accept a handful of things as fact.

You mean facts??

But that's the problem to all of this, that's why the same audience/different movies analogy is so good-- I think we disagree on some fundamental points, and all the rest of our disagreements follow.

Well somewhere among those different movies is "the right one". I just don't think it's that hard to find if you follow the facts and logic. For example, you seem to believe that Trump fired Comey for nefarious reasons. I wonder what facts and logic you've followed to reach that conclusion.

Let's start with one of the foundational pillars of American justice: Innocent until proven guilty You've completely abandoned that. It's ok to bend the rules sometimes. Like, OJ did it. But you've taken it too far this time. Of many possible explanations, you've laser-focused on the worst one, and ignored all others with no evidenciary basis for doing so.

In order to do that, you need to completely ignore the fact that there is absolutely no plausible scenario where Trump would think that he could squash the Russia investigation by firing Comey. He would surely have known that firing the FBI chief doesn't close active investigations. What logic, or fact, are you using as a basis to ignore this? I can't see how you can consider this and not reject your conclusion.

You also seem to be touting Mueller's "even-handedness". I've asked several times now for you to provide some fact, or logic that makes you believe that. I've cited known, objective facts about members of his team that raise legitimate questions about their ability to be unbiased. Yet you seem to think that challenges to the integrity of that team represent an attempt to undermine checks and balances. in order to reach that conclusion, you have to ignore the objective fact that freedom of the press exists to ensure that those questions will be asked.

Finding "the right movie" isnt that hard. Just ZOOM OUT, take in the whole pictures, and sort things out. If you don't have enough information, remain agnostic. But even then, you usually have enough information to rule out the implausible.

This means that there are a countless points which I think my position is obvious and you think it is absurd, and vice versa.

Right. That's what happens when you focus in on "points". ZOOM OUT

We end up thinking the other is complacent in the downfall of the nation

You've put words in my mouth here. I said you're part of a major problem. You said I'm undermining checks and balances. You don't have to zoom out very much to see "the right movie" here. Your claim of an attack on checks and balances is based on your own perceptions and interpretations. The counter argument, freedom of the press, is something that is explicitly codified into law. Please tell me you see the difference. Please tell me that you understand that challenging the partisan-ship of Mueller's team based on known information is fair and just. Lead investigators on the team exchanged 50,000 texts illustrating not just bias, but animosity, toward Trump. Surely you understand why the public is owed an explanation.

It's an ugly place to be. Fascinating, but ugly

Well, you might be comforted to know that zooming out doesn't help. When you see the whole picture, and see what REALLY happened (Obama-Clinton corruption) it's even uglier.

On the bright side, despite all of this, I don't think there is actually any real ill will between us-- certainly not from my side. That's gotta be worth something, right?

I don't have any ill will towards anyone here. I have ill will towards insanity, absurdity, ignorance, falsehood, and failings of logic. When I see these things, I call them out. I react, I believe, with commensurate intensity. I exercise restraint with you because I realize that you've simply failed to zoom out, and the positions you hold are symptoms of that. Yours is a problem of missing facts that can be rectified. When Poopadoop refutes medical results administered by a highly respected, experienced, and credentialed professional, that's not a problem that can be solved with education. That's irrational, donkey-brained, bat-shit insanity. And it requires a different response.

[boost]

they all are


You mean facts??


Well somewhere among those different movies is "the right one". I just don't think it's that hard to find if you follow the facts and logic. For example, you seem to believe that Trump fired Comey for nefarious reasons. I wonder what facts and logic you've followed to reach that conclusion.

Let's start with one of the foundational pillars of American justice: Innocent until proven guilty You've completely abandoned that. It's ok to bend the rules sometimes. Like, OJ did it. But you've taken it too far this time. Of many possible explanations, you've laser-focused on the worst one, and ignored all others with no evidenciary basis for doing so.

In order to do that, you need to completely ignore the fact that there is absolutely no plausible scenario where Trump would think that he could squash the Russia investigation by firing Comey. He would surely have known that firing the FBI chief doesn't close active investigations. What logic, or fact, are you using as a basis to ignore this? I can't see how you can consider this and not reject your conclusion.

You also seem to be touting Mueller's "even-handedness". I've asked several times now for you to provide some fact, or logic that makes you believe that. I've cited known, objective facts about members of his team that raise legitimate questions about their ability to be unbiased. Yet you seem to think that challenges to the integrity of that team represent an attempt to undermine checks and balances. in order to reach that conclusion, you have to ignore the objective fact that freedom of the press exists to ensure that those questions will be asked.

Finding "the right movie" isnt that hard. Just ZOOM OUT, take in the whole pictures, and sort things out. If you don't have enough information, remain agnostic. But even then, you usually have enough information to rule out the implausible.


Right. That's what happens when you focus in on "points". ZOOM OUT


You've put words in my mouth here. I said you're part of a major problem. You said I'm undermining checks and balances. You don't have to zoom out very much to see "the right movie" here. Your claim of an attack on checks and balances is based on your own perceptions and interpretations. The counter argument, freedom of the press, is something that is explicitly codified into law. Please tell me you see the difference. Please tell me that you understand that challenging the partisan-ship of Mueller's team based on known information is fair and just. Lead investigators on the team exchanged 50,000 texts illustrating not just bias, but animosity, toward Trump. Surely you understand why the public is owed an explanation.


Well, you might be comforted to know that zooming out doesn't help. When you see the whole picture, and see what REALLY happened (Obama-Clinton corruption) it's even uglier.


I don't have any ill will towards anyone here. I have ill will towards insanity, absurdity, ignorance, falsehood, and failings of logic. When I see these things, I call them out. I react, I believe, with commensurate intensity. I exercise restraint with you because I realize that you've simply failed to zoom out, and the positions you hold are symptoms of that. Yours is a problem of missing facts that can be rectified. When Poopadoop refutes medical results administered by a highly respected, experienced, and credentialed professional, that's not a problem that can be solved with education. That's irrational, donkey-brained, bat-shit insanity. And it requires a different response.

Gotta be honest, I read exactly none of the middle. But there's good reason for it. I feel confident that I can make the same arguments back in your direction, and I'm doing so in good faith, as I believe you are. That's the point of my last post. Of course each one of us believes the other is the one being deluded. I know you think your arguments are compelling, and it's frustrating when others just don't get it-- but look, I feel the same with regards to the arguments I present to you.

To be clear, I'm not saying I cannot be convinced, it's just that neither of us is convincing the other on certain topics, and it's deleterious to discussions about other, possibly more interesting and productive discussions.

The cool thing is, I know we do agree on some stuff, and I think that should maybe be more of the focus of our exchanges. I think there's a lot of pressure out there (from all sides) to demonize those who disagree with you-- but once you demonize those who disagree with you, you've eliminated any chance of working productively together on things you agree on.