onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
No. That's a joke from Trump. I heard it five times within a day of when it was spoken, because everyone thought it was hilarious.
J
Postmortem on Mueller
- Thread starter Birdjaguar
- Start date
J
Or it just makes you look like an idiot.
If we believe the "insider statements" that he needs to have his name on virtually anything before he's able to muster up the concentration to read it, then of course he didn't read the report. Not that it matters, of course, since he has millions of devoted fans who don't care about anything he says or does, provided that it gets them legislative bonuses.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Like all good speech if you aren’t willing to tell your neighbor you should probably keep it to yourself. That would include donating to your local Nazi party. Which yes your neighbor should get to know about and hopefully come punch you in the face with his antifa handkerchief on.
I’d like to hear more about these other pathologies. Since the political donation one falls on not only deaf ears to me but is a principle reason why I suggest the idea.
It was hilarious because Trump revealed the truth and then had to walk it back later.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
He didn't walk it back so much as explain the joke.
Of course, explaining it takes all the humor out and some people still don't get it. It happens.
J
Keep drinking that Kool aid J.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Kool aid is a delicious drink, comes in many flavors, sorta like races... inject it with poison, then, yeah, it sucks, like racism.
Of course you remember that ever since Jonestown, Kool aid, outside of the grocery store, is always about brainwashing and poison.
Berzerker
Deity
Like all good speech if you aren’t willing to tell your neighbor you should probably keep it to yourself. That would include donating to your local Nazi party. Which yes your neighbor should get to know about and hopefully come punch you in the face with his antifa handkerchief on.
I’d like to hear more about these other pathologies. Since the political donation one falls on not only deaf ears to me but is a principle reason why I suggest the idea.
The 1st Amendment protects free speech, not good speech. I wouldn't be paying my neighbor a visit if he was a Nazi and I wouldn't want him knowing I donated to the ACLU, ADL and SPLC. Why do you want everyone knowing information like that, do you want to get death threats? Do you want some yahoo killing your pets because you gave money to Antifa or fa?
You will have zealots all over the country looking thru tax returns to identify their enemies. Even neighbors you get along with would find out you support causes they oppose - it aint none of their business. You want political donations exposed? The country was founded by people criticizing the King anonymously and meeting in secret.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
We don't have a King and we are a nation based on the rule of law which should preclude me punching the Nazi or the Nazi death threatening me. I actually expect people to act like adults, funny how a libertarian expects that up until the point that it regards political speech and then childishness and secrets are totally ok. If I support radical Islam or communism I'd still expect to be treated normally. If it came to subversives I would expect them to circumvent all this anyways. You don't need money to start a movement subversively or anything.
bernie14
Filter Manipulator
Yeah, i know, some people probably dont even buy kool aid anymore because they mistakenly make an association between kool aid and poisoning, so silly
Berzerker
Deity
Would you expect to be treated normally if you supported Trump?
I work with a couple of Trump supporters and I will not talk politics with them, so I do not treat them like other folks. I think, if I were a Trump supporter, I would not be inclined to talk politics except around similar folks because I might well be thought badly of.
Berzerker
Deity
“Remember, the president interprets the world through television,” Haberman noted Friday on CNN’s “New Day.” Until Wednesday, she said, “Mueller had not appeared on TV, talking” about the report, so “it caught the White House’s attention in a big way. Mueller stood there very clearly and said he couldn’t say the president didn’t commit a crime.”- HuffPost
She nailed it... But what are the grounds for impeachment if Mueller doesn't know if he committed a crime?
Kinda like being an Obama supporter in a deep red part of the country.
She nailed it... But what are the grounds for impeachment if Mueller doesn't know if he committed a crime?
Kinda like being an Obama supporter in a deep red part of the country.
First on the list is obstruction of Justice. That is why Mueller laid out ten instances in great legal detail.
Could be. I never worked with or hung out with Obama haters. NM is a mostly blue state.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Define normally, I'm against him and am not treated normally to some extent. That's fine. That's reality. I live in a 70% republican area, I respect people's opinions as they should mine. Now if war breaks out I'm fleeing the area. The history around here is neighbors killing neighbors and families killing each other last time it got like that around here. I have kids to look out for, which takes precedence over fighting a good fight for now.
Berzerker
Deity
Normally means how you treat people whose politics are unknown. If you want to know who is donating to whom, should voting still be secret? Here is what I see happening if tax returns are public, the country will become even more polarized as people move based on ideology, a kind of political cleansing evolves as liberals and conservatives seek safety in numbers. People self segregate, publishing tax returns will encourage it even more.
Didn't Mueller say he was not exonerating Trump? Doesn't that mean he's saying he cant prove Trump is innocent but cant prove he's guilty either? The obstruction accusation depends on intent (and this is probably why Mueller appears indecisive), was Trump guilty of conspiracy and trying to stop the investigation? Or was he innocent and pissed off Clinton campaign lies turned into spying and a special counsel? If it was the latter his alleged obstruction could be interpreted as attempts at ensuring a fair process.
Mueller didn't find evidence for the conspiracy, but Trump sure found evidence of malfeasance. The Steele dossier became a FISA warrant, members of Mueller's team got busted talking about bringing Trump down, the Democrat media spent 2 years lying, and it was Obama's DoJ in charge. Yeah, Trump had good reason to make sure the investigation was fair. If he saw or suspected bias he wanted the person removed. He didn't try to shut down the investigation, he tried to keep it fair - thats what an innocent man would do. Thats how I read it.
No. It means that he can't exonerate Trump because Trump is a suspected perpetrator of a crime. Mueller is prevented both from saying that he committed a crime, and charging him with a crime by the DOJ.
Note the special emphasis on saying that he committed a crime. Mueller is effectively muzzled by the DOJ, and because the report is in the hands of a traitor like Barr and heavily redacted, Mueller can't speak to the specifics of the report because it hasn't been, and most likely, will never be fully released until Trump is safely out of office. If even then.
But hey, your mileage may vary in your little corner of the world.
As Mueller said both in his report and live, he was not permitted by DOJ policy to make a decision about obstruction. He clearly stated that the policy only allowed him to present the evidence and that [congress] would have to decide what to do with it. On the conspiracy/collusion issue he said that there was not sufficient evidence. The underlying thread seemed to be that the campaign was too inept to actually conspire. The obstruction issue is simple: trying to interfere with an federal investigation is obstruction. end of story. Trump is now trying to say that because i think that the investigation was wrong/misguided/politically motivated etc. I can't have obstructed it. to have any chance of making that stick, he will need convince somebody (I don't know who) that was the case. I think that Trump is just trying to convince his base and give Republicans cover to keep supporting him. Obstruction is very narrowly defined: doing things to impede an investigation. Mueller found ten instances of that. Trump wants to redefine obstruction to somehow make the charges not stick.Typically, he is trying to blame Hillary because his base likes that. To blame Hillary he has to make the dossier the most important element of launching the investigation. Which it wasn't. This is classic Trump: try to rewrite the public narrative to suit his purposes and truth doesn't matter.
