*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[TheSpoonald]

MMM. I'm not going to respond in snippets anymore, it's too long now. Let me just see if I can rephrase your argument exactly as I understand it, and demonstrate to you how silly it is. Instead of legalese, we will use scientific terms that I'm sure you understand.

Mueller, because of his patriotic interpretation of the constitution, has the legal ability to investigate the physical properties of any substance and declare it either solid...or not a solid.

So Mueller looks at some ice. He sees that it has firm surfaces, holds its shape, resists penetration, etc. So he reports that it's solid.

then he looks at some water and sees that it doesn't have a firm surface, and it takes the shape of it's container, so he says it's not solid.

Then he looks at some steam. And for whatever reason he can't collect it, he can't look at it under a microscope, he can't determine if the vapor in the air is tiny solid particles like dust or if it's actually a vapor. So reports no finding on steam.

By your logic, that means that steam is not not solid.

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM. I'm not going to respond in snippets anymore, it's too long now. Let me just see if I can rephrase your argument exactly as I understand it, and demonstrate to you how silly it is. Instead of legalese, we will use scientific terms that I'm sure you understand.

Oh thank god.
Please, lets do this.

Mueller, because of his patriotic interpretation of the constitution, has the legal ability to investigate the physical properties of any substance and declare it either solid...or not a solid.

So Mueller looks at some ice. He sees that it has firm surfaces, holds its shape, resists penetration, etc. So he reports that it's solid.

then he looks at some water and sees that it doesn't have a firm surface, and it takes the shape of it's container, so he says it's not solid.

Then he looks at some steam. And for whatever reason he can't collect it, he can't look at it under a microscope, he can't determine if the vapor in the air is tiny solid particles like dust or if it's actually a vapor. So reports no finding on steam.

By your logic, that means that steam is not not solid.

No.

By my logic, he hasn't drawn a conclusion about steam, and that's interesting. It doesn't mean solid or not solid. The false dichotomy is exposed for what it is. There is more to this than black and white.
Funny, 'cause that's your argument, not mine. Where he drew no conclusion, you're saying there is a conclusion drawn.


Back from the metaphor:
The fact that he has openly cleared the pres of some, but not all accusations is interesting.
You're the one who's claiming that since he didn't nail the pres to a wall, then there's no evidence to do so. That's simply not in the report.
IF in the report, he'd cleared the pres of each accusation under investigaion, then you'd be correct in your position. However, that's simply not what he wrote. I find the fact that Mueller clearly was willing to clear the president on some, but not all, charges, in no uncertain terms is noteworthy. Where he drew no conclusion is interesting.

I'm not the one saying there's a conclusion where there is none. You're the one who doesn't seem to really understand that Mueller literally could not say anything, in the report or otherwise, that would indicate the sitting POTUS committed a crime. That's a fact that is also interesting.

The obvious implication is that he can't report anything that would tie his hands into drawing the conclusion that a crime was committed by the sitting POTUS. Because to do so would be treason.
Do you agree that this is an obvious implication of his belief?

I'm not drawing any conclusions beyond this. Just asking if you agree with this.

Assuming so,
I'm still not saying that there are conclusions to be drawn where the MR draws none. I'm just saying there are these 2 interesting facts sitting here. They raise more questions than they provide answers.

[Poopadoop]

MMM. I'm not going to respond in snippets anymore, it's too long now. Let me just see if I can rephrase your argument exactly as I understand it, and demonstrate to you how silly it is. Instead of legalese, we will use scientific terms that I'm sure you understand.

Mueller, because of his patriotic interpretation of the constitution, has the legal ability to investigate the physical properties of any substance and declare it either solid...or not a solid.

So Mueller looks at some ice. He sees that it has firm surfaces, holds its shape, resists penetration, etc. So he reports that it's solid.

then he looks at some water and sees that it doesn't have a firm surface, and it takes the shape of it's container, so he says it's not solid.

Then he looks at some steam. And for whatever reason he can't collect it, he can't look at it under a microscope, he can't determine if the vapor in the air is tiny solid particles like dust or if it's actually a vapor. So reports no finding on steam.

By your logic, that means that steam is not not solid.

This falls flat because there aren't 3 options in Mueller's case.

His task is asymmetrical, based on two possible outcomes, only one of which he is allowed to state as a conclusion. In case 1, he states Option A (the allowed conclusion). In case 2, he states that the conclusion must be drawn by others (the Congress). He does NOT state Option A.

[TheSpoonald]

This falls flat because there aren't 3 options in Mueller's case.

Fine here's a binary example

Let's say that water represents Russian contacts. Liquid water is fine. But if any of that water is ice, it represents criminal collusion. So we send in Robert Mueller to "investigate the water", but really what we're asking him to do is "see if there is any ice"

And ice is being defined as "solid water"

Mueller, is unable to declare something solid. He can only declare something not solid if the evidence is definitive.

Mueller investigates some water, finds that it's all liquid, and declares that "not solid". Then he finds some mist in the air. But he can't observe it enough to determine if it really is steam (or 'not solid water'), or if it is some other substance in the air like smoke or dust, which would be suspended solids. So he makes no finding on that.

In Poop/MMM world, that means that Mueller found water that was not not solid and that means ZOMG COLLUSION, when really all it means is that Mueller found "not liquid", which isn't a designation that exists in his lexicon.

[Poopadoop]

Fine here's a binary example

Lol, all you've done is change the analogy so there's the three states of water are liquid, solid, or mist.

[MadMojoMonkey]

In Poop/MMM world, that means that Mueller found water that was not not solid and that means ZOMG COLLUSION, when really all it means is that Mueller found "not liquid", which isn't a designation that exists in his lexicon.

I haven't read everything in the past 3 pages, but I assume that poop's never said collusion 'cause poop knows that collusion is a red herring, since it's not a crime on any level of US law. Cooperation to deceive is not illegal. Neither part of it is illegal, either.

Anyone talking about collusion is either ignorant of this fact or is chasing ratings. They can be ignored from the adult talk.

[TheSpoonald]

collusion is a red herring, since it's not a crime on any level of US law.

This blows my mind. After everything you've posted today, you're telling me you get this?

Ok...follow me now.......

if Mueller is handcuffed against saying Trump committed a crime......and collusion is not a crime.....then why can't Mueller say "Trump colluded"

[TheSpoonald]

The point here is that the left was so sure....and I mean SOOOOO sure that Mueller was going to report something on Trump that got him booted out of office. It was just the precursor to inevitable impeachment.

The fact that didn't happen and even a half-impeachment (house only) is triple digit odds at best... means that Trump wins.

His poll numbers dipped for like 3 days, and then rebounded. This didn't put a scratch on him.

If you wanna talk about what's interesting or what might happen after he's out of office, go ahead. It's loser talk.

And if every media outlet and 2020 candidate is spouting loser talk....what does that make them?

That's my only point. regardless of what you want to think...I'm not a Trump sycophant, I have plenty of not great stuff to say about the guy. But I won't say he's a traitor. I won't say he's not a patriot. I won't say he's dumb. And I wont' say he obstructed justice just because he was pissed off about the fact he was surrounded by a cabal of illegal leakers seeking to frame him for treason.

if you see any of that in the Mueller report, then you were never going to see anything else.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you wanna talk about what's interesting or what might happen after he's out of office, go ahead. It's loser talk.

And if every media outlet and 2020 candidate is spouting loser talk....what does that make them?

Lol
What are you mentally trapped at the age of 11?
"loser talk"
lol
dude
Seriously... go back to your carpentry hobby. The grown ups are talking.
Run along, now.

That's my only point. regardless of what you want to think...I'm not a Trump sycophant, I have plenty of not great stuff to say about the guy. But I won't say he's a traitor. I won't say he's not a patriot. I won't say he's dumb. And I wont' say he obstructed justice just because he was pissed off about the fact he was surrounded by a cabal of illegal leakers seeking to frame him for treason.

if you see any of that in the Mueller report, then you were never going to see anything else.

You're not listening. You're trying to make this into some huge grand thing where we're against you or something.
Not the case.
We're against stupidity. To the extent that you're behaving stupidly, then yes, we are against you.

For the record, I'm not saying he obstructed justice. I'm saying that your claim that the MR says he didn't obstruct justice is pure fantasy.
Your ambition to push other views upon me is just painting you into a corner with a dunce cap.
I'm not trying to guess any political future.
I'm pointing out that you're pretending to have deep, adult understanding of these issues, but all you got is spoon-fed nonsense from popular ratings whores.

You seriously went back to the wall issue? You seriously pulled out that nonsense article that we debunked years ago AGAIN?!
Grow up. Your mental position on this is stuck in a rut and you can't see it.
That stupid article says "only 1 of the men managed to throw a grapple over the wall to scale it" or some fucking nonsense. Like as if it takes more than 1 failure to show that the idea is really, really stupid.
You like to bring up science. Wake up to that one. It only takes 1 verified data point to destroy all the prior assumptions and assurances.