# Release of the Mueller report is imminent, AG Barr has in-hand, judiciary committees being briefed



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

https://6abc.com/politics/what-happens-after-the-final-mueller-report/5212043/

We're hours, maybe only minutes away from seeing the culmination of two years of investigative work.  I have no idea where things will be going from here, but this will be a historic day regardless.

After saying yesterday that he wants the entire report released to the public, Trump unsurprisingly changed his stance today in light of the news, and then jetted off to Mar-A-Lago.

Edit: I'll update the OP with a link to the report (or whatever summary we get) when it's released.  That way nobody has to wade through all the off-topic stuff.

Edit2: A summary has been released.  Apparently "while the report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."

https://www.scribd.com/document/402973302/Letter#from_embed

Kinda anti-climatic if you ask me, feels like we're right back where we started.  I'd still like to see more of the report.

Edit3: Redacted Mueller report available to read and download here:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551


----------



## Chary (Mar 22, 2019)

At the end of the day, I don't have a stance on either party, but I am quite interested in seeing what all the countless months of investigations have led to.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Mar 22, 2019)




----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 22, 2019)

I say, 6:30(ish)pm EST or 7:42(exact)pm would seem likely.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 22, 2019)

i have a good feeling bout this and i'm sure trump won't like it


----------



## tech3475 (Mar 22, 2019)

Time to grab some popcorn.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

New federal charges were filed against Manafort just an hour ago.  The charges are: conspiracy against the United States, and conspiracy to obstruct justice (witness tampering).  The likelihood of these charges being filed against Trump as well seems high, thus Mueller's reason for waiting until the day of the report release.

New filing in United States v. Manafort: Judgmenthttps://t.co/94zGkNz9Kc pic.twitter.com/GhxQ2dWbFT— Big Cases Bot (@big_cases) March 22, 2019


----------



## SG854 (Mar 22, 2019)

I just wanna say that Robert Muller lied about weapons of mass destruction and led us to the Iraq war. That’s his job as CIA to plant false evidence and keep people out of politics.

Are you willing to put trust in this guy?


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Mar 22, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> i'm sure trump won't like it


 As quoted from Xzi, "After saying yesterday that he wants the entire report released to the public, Trump unsurprisingly changed his stance today in light of the news, and then jetted off to Mar-A-Lago."

You know he's getting 40+ twatter responses set with, "Paid off to make me look BAD! Just opposite happy, so opposite happy. McTrumps Hamburders and covfefe later!!!" and the ever-popular, "Fake News™!"


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> New federal charges were filed against Manafort just an hour ago.  The charges are: conspiracy against the United States, and conspiracy to obstruct justice (witness tampering).  The likelihood of these charges being filed against Trump as well seems high, thus Mueller's reason for waiting until the day of the report release.
> 
> https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/1109206940314492928


 you DO REALIZE trump can't be charged unless he's successfully impeached right?


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 22, 2019)

Trump will be exhionerated!
2 years of a worthless witch hunt by the loser dems!
Tell me again who cannot accept the outcome of the election....
It's not about what is right for the USA, it's about the communist left getting their crybaby ways even if it does not make any sense or have any morals.
I predict 1000's of angry bearded ladies running around aiming dildo's in the white mans faces screaming rape!


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 22, 2019)

@Cylent unlike my comment right now I hate trump just pointing out facts


----------



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> you DO REALIZE trump can't be charged unless he's successfully impeached right?


I think that very point is being argued against in front of a secret grand jury.  There is no law saying that the president can't be indicted, only an old justice department memo.  There are 17 sealed indictments still, and they might end up being executed by SDNY or another office.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 22, 2019)

that would be nice i'm sure an inditment would mean instant removal from office correct? no congress needed


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 22, 2019)

over 2 years and not 1 lick of evidence supporting the russian collusion!
Don't you think just 1 of these rabbid dems would have brought out the worse accusations from the beginning, and if not somewhere toward the end?
They have nothing and they know it!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

Looks like we're gonna have to wait for the weekend for the report to be made public because William Barr wants to take his time removing and redacting information.  I honestly wouldn't expect anything less of a man involved in Iran-Contra.


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 22, 2019)

1 thing to remember is the the USA is a republic and we follow the constitutional laws of the land.
We are not a democracy which means mob rule! 
GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE WITH THAT BULLSHIT!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> 1 thing to remember is the the USA is a republic and we follow the constitutional laws of the land.
> We are not a democracy which means mob rule!
> GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE WITH THAT BULLSHIT!


No shit, the law of the land is what this is all about.  It's Mueller's job to enforce that law.  And the president is not above the law.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 22, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> i have a good feeling bout this and i'm sure trump won't like it



I'm sure that even if Mueller clearly spelled out Trump committed no crime but at the same time kept bad company and was horrible at judging character--both seem patently clear--that Trump would be more upset than if he were charged with a simple crime and called an otherwise great guy.  Now, if that extended to time in jail?  Or prison?  Honestly, though, I don't expect anything to do be done.



SG854 said:


> I just wanna say that Robert Muller lied about weapons of mass destruction and led us to the Iraq war.



At least the short clip wasn't a lie AFAIK--deceptive, though, to the extreme*.  Nor was it what led us into the Iraq war.  It was well known that Saddam had little if any WMDs**, was trying to obstruct verification that 100% were destroyed, and he had an interest, though no real success, of trying to continue his WMD program under UN inspections.  I'd argue, either GWB was guilty of believing too much into the innuendo and supposition of US Intelligence or had an ax to grind that promoted a desire for war with Iraq--perhaps to appear strong in the Middle East and otherwise to have a direct presence there.  The point being is, if Trump can ignore US Intelligence then so could GWB.

It's clear, if anything, US Intelligence was being lead to research and promote possible threats precisely to "prevent another 9/11".  With the mentality of "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,"  and fighting them over there to not have to fight them here (can't readily find a quote with a date), it was only a matter of time for the US to attack someone.  Saddam was just very stupid and somewhat boxed in:  he needed to keep the specter of WMDs like North Korea to discourage regional invasion but be transparent enough that the US or Europe wouldn't interfere.  He played that game too long and suffered badly, as I tend to believe North Korea will suffer some day--hard to be sure, of course.

This, btw, isn't meant to excuse Mueller's "technically correct" speech to Congress.  Really, Colin Powell holding a model vial of anthrax for the UN did more to directly imply a threat--and Mueller actually didn't go along with the implied threat wen pushed.  The sad part is, at the time conspiracy theories and non-media "fake news" were the norm, so people kept believing the lies.  The UN knew better and didn't add support precisely because their own investigator made it clear that Saddam was merely playing a PR game, not actually making WMDs or successfully hording them.  And not to put too fine a point on it, but they knew precisely what to look for because Europe and the US are the ones who supplied said material components for Iraq's previous war against Iran.  So at some level, I can understand the US's desire than it and Europe clean up the mess that it created (or at least supported).

*sigh*  In the end, the most important thing is to not listen to the words of a few "top men".  It's to listen to the evidence and make your own judgment.

* Was there a fear Saddam had WMDs?  Sure because fear is an emotion that's not inherently based upon fact.  Was there a fear Saddam would given WMDs to terrorists?  Again, yes, because fear is often irrational.  One could have a fear of any country giving WMDs to terrorists.

** Misplaced material components or insufficient tracking in most operations means rarely can you be 100% sure if 100% were destroyed.  But given no one knows where they are, they're effectively unavailable which negates a reasonable argument that there's a threat of their use.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 22, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> you DO REALIZE trump can't be charged unless he's successfully impeached right?


Not only is there no law saying this, but there's also no precedent. The JD policy of not indicting a sitting president is based on a side note in a policy explanation about why they can indict a sitting vice president (contrasting the two in a hypothetical sense), but the policy wasn't meant to close the door on the topic on indicting a president. It didn't even really address it. It basically said, "A vice president isn't important like a president is, so we can indict a vice president for sure." That's what the policy is based on, which is pretty meaningless. Even the authors said it's not meant to form policy regarding the president.

In summary, the JD policy is subject to change.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 22, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> I'm sure that even if Mueller clearly spelled out Trump committed no crime but at the same time kept bad company and was horrible at judging character--both seem patently clear--that Trump would be more upset than if he were charged with a simple crime and called an otherwise great guy.  Now, if that extended to time in jail?  Or prison?  Honestly, though, I don't expect anything to do be done.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good Clarification

Ya, the top men is not what I’m looking for answers. I would have to look at evidence and make my own conclusions. There is talk from inside news sources saying that the muller report would be anti climatic.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Good Clarification
> 
> Ya, the top men is not what I’m looking for answers. I would have to look at evidence and make my own conclusions. There is talk from inside news sources saying that the muller report would be anti climatic.


What you can expect from the report are details on those individuals who have been indicted so far, details on those individuals who have yet to be indicted, and explanations for why other individuals involved _aren't _being indicted.

Therefore it is possible that Mueller decided against indicting Trump because of the DOJ's current stance on that, but the report will still provide evidence of Trump's guilt in one or several crimes.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What you can expect from the report are details on those individuals who have been indicted so far, details on those individuals who have yet to be indicted, and explanations for why other individuals involved _aren't _being indicted.
> 
> Therefore it is possible that Mueller decided against indicting Trump because of the DOJ's current stance on that, but the report will still provide evidence of Trump's guilt in one or several crimes.


Right now Trump is on track for a 2020 landslide victory using economic models that have consistently predicted presidential winners, if the economy continues to stay strong.

It predicted Trump winning 2016 even though polls had Hillary in the lead.

This Muller Report might be a make or break case. It’ll either show Trump a criminal or a victim which will boost him even more.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...election-campaign-democrats-a8835186.html?amp


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/how-trump-is-on-track-for-a-2020-landslide/amp/


----------



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This Muller Report might be a make or break case. It’ll either show Trump a criminal or a victim which will boost him even more.


If the report clears him, then he's not a victim of anything, and if he's guilty, then he's a criminal instead of a victim.


----------



## jme2712 (Mar 22, 2019)

Chary said:


> At the end of the day, I don't have a stance on either party, but I am quite interested in seeing what all the countless months of investigations have led to.



And tax payer $$.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If the report clears him, then he's not a victim of anything, and if he's guilty, then he's a criminal instead of a victim.


People will see him a victim of a witch hunt that’s how they’ll perceive it. It’s all about perception and many Americans perceive it as a witch hunt. 

Even though they see him as a horrible person socially, they perceive the economy to be strong and they’ll ignore his bad attitude and vote for him based on how the economy is doing. That’s what the economic models predict who will become president. Something can still ruin it if a big scandal came about but as of right now he’s on track for a landslide victory.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> People will see him a victim of a witch hunt that’s how they’ll perceive it. It’s all about perception and many Americans perceive it as a witch hunt.


A witch hunt would mean prosecuting Trump with no evidence against him.  That's not even a possibility here.  If people want to sympathize with a man that plays the victim 24/7, that's a decision that has nothing to do with law enforcement doing its job.

At first it was the claim that his "taxes were being audited," then it was the "rigged witch-hunt from angry Democrats."  I wonder what his next excuse for not doing his job will be after the Mueller report drops.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> A witch hunt would mean prosecuting Trump with no evidence against him.  That's not even a possibility here.


Explain that to 50% of Americans that think this is a witch hunt.

The Muller report will either rise or lower that number.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.wash...hunt-is-right-50-percent-of-americans-now-sa/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...lers-probe-is-witch-hunt-depends-how-you-ask/


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Explain that to 50% of Americans that think this is a witch hunt.


That was a poll with flawed methodology, it was essentially three questions in one.  The results are not accurate because of that.



SG854 said:


> The Muller report will either rise or lower that number.


The Mueller report is the end of the investigation, so people's opinions on its legitimacy are largely meaningless at this point.  Assuming they weren't meaningless before, anyway, because Mueller is not an elected official.  He doesn't have to care about public opinion.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That was a poll with flawed methodology, it was essentially three questions in one.  The results are not accurate because of that.
> 
> 
> The Mueller report is the end of the investigation, so people's opinions on its legitimacy are largely meaningless at this point.  Assuming they weren't meaningless before, anyway, because Mueller is not an elected official.  He doesn't have to care about public opinion.


Public opinion matters in elections


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Public opinion matters in elections


And?  You keep praying that a criminal investigation is somehow going to improve Trump's poll numbers, but that's not how things work.  He's barely broken 40% approval at any point during his presidency thus far, and his lowest point was around 30%.  Even if the Mueller report does clear him of all criminal suspicion, it's not going to paint flattering picture of him.  The cries of "witch hunt" are going to be completely invalidated by whatever evidence Mueller presents, because one does not gather evidence for a witch hunt.  As much as I'd love to see Trump try to stay afloat, that's not the way the process has unfolded.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That was a poll with flawed methodology, it was essentially three questions in one.  The results are not accurate because of that.
> 
> 
> The Mueller report is the end of the investigation, so people's opinions on its legitimacy are largely meaningless at this point.  Assuming they weren't meaningless before, anyway, because Mueller is not an elected official.  He doesn't have to care about public opinion.


It’s not so flawed when you look at the questions. You don’t know what they are  answering yes to of the 3 question, but yes to any of the questions doesn’t look good for muller.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> And?  You keep praying that a criminal investigation is somehow going to improve Trump's poll numbers, but that's not how things work.  He's barely broken 40% approval at any point during his presidency thus far, and his lowest point was around 30%.  Even if the Mueller report does clear him of all criminal suspicion, it's not going to paint flattering picture of him.  The cries of "witch hunt" are going to be completely invalidated by whatever evidence Mueller presents, because one does not gather evidence for a witch hunt.  As much as I'd love to see Trump try to stay afloat, that's not the way the process has unfolded.


The economic model I linked doesn’t care about approval rating it looks at how the economy is doing. And says people are willing to ignore approval rating if the economy is doing good. Trump had a low approval rating the first time around and he won.


----------



## Cylent1 (Mar 23, 2019)

Did anybody even read the headlines?
Mueller not seeking any further indictments.

HHHHHHHMMMMMM................................  I bet Trump will be proven innocent just like we all knew already!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The economic model I linked doesn’t care about approval rating it looks at how the economy is doing. And says people are willing to ignore approval rating if the economy is doing good. Trump had a low approval rating the first time around and he won.


The fact that Trump is riding on a super strong economy right now and still can only manage 40% approval is probably worrisome for him and his team.  It's literally the one and only thing he has going for him.  So if the economy wavers even just a little bit in the run-up to the election, he loses.  He's left himself no wiggle room.  Hell, he might lose anyway just based on the fact that he's an incompetent leader and most people believe both choices were shit in 2016.  The economy is far from being the only factor in elections.

Edit: And while we were discussing it, the DOW dropped 460 points today, not the first sign we've seen of an impending recession.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/03/22/...ld-curve/index.html?__twitter_impression=true



Cylent1 said:


> Did anybody even read the headlines?
> Mueller not seeking any further indictments.


Relatively meaningless until the report is released for context.  Is Mueller's team not indicting anyone else because they've handed those indictments off to other offices?  Do they have evidence of Trump's guilt but decided not to indict because of DOJ precedent?  Impossible to know for the moment.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The fact that Trump is riding on a super strong economy right now and still can only manage 40% approval is probably worrisome for him and his team.  It's literally the one and only thing he has going for him.  So if the economy wavers even just a little bit in the run-up to the election, he loses.  He's left himself no wiggle room.  Hell, he might lose anyway just based on the fact that he's an incompetent leader and most people believe both choices were shit in 2016.  The economy is far from being the only factor in elections.
> 
> Edit: And while we were discussing it, the DOW dropped 460 points today, not the first sign we've seen of an impending recession.
> 
> ...


It seems like the Republicans are celebrating. That sources say it’s an embarrassment for Democrats.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/mueller-submits-russia-report/index.html


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It seems like the Republicans are celebrating. That sources say it’s an embarrassment for Democrats.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/mueller-submits-russia-report/index.html


Only a select few at the DOJ have access to the report right now, so any "celebrating" is just an attempt to get out in front of whatever the report contains.  It's not surprising that Republicans are painting it as "no big deal" before anyone has seen it.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Only a select few at the DOJ have access to the report right now, so any "celebrating" is just an attempt to get out in front of whatever the report contains.  It's not surprising that Republicans are painting it as "no big deal" before anyone has seen it.


From 4 hours ago


> The White House and President Trump's advisers are already framing today’s development as a positive sign.
> 
> One person told CNN “we won” and that the campaign has been absolved because there weren’t any charges related to conspiracy or obstruction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> From 4 hours ago


Rofl that statement reeks of desperation.

"The official also pointed out not one single Trump associate has been (or will be) charged with any collusion or any wrongdoing on the campaign or while Trump was in office."

Manafort just got indicted on additional conspiracy charges today, FFS.  

Definitely wishful thinking on their part.  No more indictments from Mueller's team doesn't mean no more indictments period.  We need to know how much has been handed off to other investigations on the federal and state levels.  Mueller's team has always worked closely with SDNY, and it's quite possible they've moved everything to the state level in order to avoid the quandary of presidential pardons.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "The official also pointed out not one single Trump associate has been (or will be) charged with any collusion or any wrongdoing on the campaign or while Trump was in office."
> 
> Manafort just got indicted on additional conspiracy charges today, FFS.



Involving actions taken while actually on the Trump campaign staff, or is it stuff Manafort's alleged to have done before being on the Trump campaign, or after resigning from it? Remember, Trump pushed Manafort out after just a few months, when he learned about Manafort's shady past and side activities. Trump wasn't a GOP insider, and someone with Manafort's track record of working on major Presidential campaigns going back to the 70's probably looked pretty solid at first blush.


----------



## notimp (Mar 23, 2019)

Sorry, was there just the argument made, that fake news didn't tell you the real reasons behind a war? When you started it? How?
(Are news agencies now supposed to run better secret service departments than your state ones?)

Because if you actually took the time to look at commentary and the back pages, people spoke out against the common narrative. Although it was critizised after the fact, that all media outlets went with the governments position too fast, but thats a safe criticism to make, because most of them will always do.

So if the argument is actually, that you werent presented with the real issues, "easily enough" (go look up Dick Cheney again, just for one part of it) you havent learned much. How about you reading foreign news papers? How about when your axis of willing consisted of you, your buddies from the UK, and some banana republics carefully picked to make it seem like a huge coalition?

You blame everything on fake news media these days, dont you?

You know what? That sucks.

edit: Read this: https://slate.com/culture/2013/01/t...-surprising-documentary.html?via=gdpr-consent Watch the "Fog of war" documentary.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Involving actions taken while actually on the Trump campaign staff, or is it stuff Manafort's alleged to have done before being on the Trump campaign, or after resigning from it? Remember, Trump pushed Manafort out after just a few months, when he learned about Manafort's shady past and side activities. Trump wasn't a GOP insider, and someone with Manafort's track record of working on major Presidential campaigns going back to the 70's probably looked pretty solid at first blush.


I can't be sure of the details on these filings yet, but the offenses occured up to and through 12-31-17, and 04-30-18 respectively.  If you want my opinion, these indictments are related to the Trump campaign polling data that Manafort provided to Russian intelligence.  Whether it can be proven that Trump gave the order to Manafort to begin giving away that data or not has yet to be seen, however.


----------



## supermist (Mar 23, 2019)

jme2712 said:


> And tax payer $$.



The assets seized throughout this investigation already paid for it and then some.


----------



## GhostLatte (Mar 23, 2019)

Let's get this bastard impeached.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

GhostLatte said:


> Let's get this bastard impeached.


There's another wildcard that I'd love to be true: no more indictments doesn't necessarily mean the report has no opinion on impeachment.  Hell, the entire thing could be a recommendation for impeachment listing out the innumerous articles (offenses) for the Congress/Senate to use against Trump.


----------



## kuwanger (Mar 23, 2019)

notimp said:


> Sorry, was there just the argument made, that fake news didn't tell you the real reasons behind a war? When you started it? How?
> (Are news agencies now supposed to run better secret service departments than your state ones?)



No, there was plenty of news that spelled out how clear it was that the GWB Administration wanted to invade Iraq and was using WMD violations as an excuse.  There were even pre-war protests because it was patently clear that the administration wasn't interested in the truth, but there was some hope that enough people protesting might make the administration stop.  Clearly that didn't happen.  The comment about fake news was and still is the point that the news media would simultaneously report the news and give the administration a mouth-piece, directly quoting them even when it was patently clear they were lying.  As a consequence, a large percentage of the population did (and possibly still do) believe those lies and parrot them not only in response to real evidence in real news but also create their own web sites full of such fake news.



notimp said:


> Because if you actually took the time to look at commentary and the back pages, people spoke out against the common narrative. Although it was critizised after the fact, that all media outlets went with the governments position too fast, but thats a safe criticism to make, because most of them will always do.



News media didn't "went with the governments position".  It did fail to lay on the substantial, heavy criticism that was deserved.  Really, few news papers do so.  For example, I know much more about Trump and his various sexual abusive behavior, but I know nothing of his work (or lack there of) compared to what is the norm.  Sure, there's reports about him watching lots of TV, but that says nothing substantial.



notimp said:


> So if the argument is actually, that you werent presented with the real issues, "easily enough" (go look up Dick Cheney again, just for one part of it) you havent learned much. How about you reading foreign news papers? How about when your axis of willing consisted of you, your buddies from the UK, and some banana republics carefully picked to make it seem like a huge coalition?



Read above.  The fact that Colin Powell went to the UN and the UN basically laughed in his face should have been a wake up call for even the most conspiracy minded.  But then that was twisted into it all being some Euro-centric scheme, backed by France, in the "Oil for Food" scandal to prop up an ally.  That was of course absurd, but for some it was enough to shut their mind to the obvious.



notimp said:


> You blame everything on fake news media these days, dont you?
> 
> You know what? That sucks.



No, what sucks is that even if the news media had been as brutal as they should have been about how wrong the Iraq war was, it would have done nothing to stop it.  I knew that the second the words were spoken against Iraq because it was the same bullshit logic used to invade Afghanistan.  The only real difference is that over a year had passed and at least some people were actually questioning having a second war, either for logistical concerns or, you know, not being on that vengeance high that justified the first one.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 23, 2019)

Is the divergence above 1.0 yet?


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 23, 2019)

Hmm...I wanted to abstain a bit until there is actually NEWS coming out, but I can't help myself.


SG854 said:


> This Muller Report might be a make or break case. It’ll either show Trump a criminal or a victim which will boost him even more.


This has got to be one of the weirdest - if not the weirdest - sentences I've ever read. And I'm even torn on which possibility I find the most absurd.

Victim: okay...so let's say Cohen was right and all Trump wanted was to hold a trademark commercial and only accidentally became president because - and I can't believe I'm writing this - he failed to hire incompetent campaign managers. Does this mean we have to pity him because he's in a position he didn't want to be in? Is this a "look...I wanted to do it legally but everyone conspired against me and made me president in an illegal way?" sort of defense. Heck...shouldn't he then, y'know...QUIT HIS JOB or something?

Criminal: yeah, I get it: you Americans love a good villain. Jesse James, Bonny & Clyde, wall street bankers...there is something you romanticize about criminals. But really...do you REALLY think the general public is going to say "I want him for president cuz he's gansta!" ?
Also...going by Trump logic...shouldn't Hillary have won the 2016 election, then?


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Hmm...I wanted to abstain a bit until there is actually NEWS coming out, but I can't help myself.
> 
> This has got to be one of the weirdest - if not the weirdest - sentences I've ever read. And I'm even torn on which possibility I find the most absurd.
> 
> ...


Not even weird at all. This will be devastating to the Democratic Party if no collusion is found. People won’t have faith in mainstream media. They will see him a victim of false allegations on the Trump Russia deal without any proof to begin with. It’s not about him become of president on accident. Will they apologize if no evidence come out but they were pretending there was this mountain of evidence. Many people lives have been ruined from this investigation. And lots of money has been spent to fight this legally. This damaged a lot of things. And Trump will have to pardon a lot of people.

And so far evidence shows that Trump has been going against the wishes of Russia and Putin, showing he is not an agent of Putin. There are no more indictments from Muller, and none that connect Trump to Russia. If he had the evidence he would of done indictments by now. You have Noam Chomsky the world most renowned intellect saying that their is no evidence to suggest that Trump is a agent of Putin, so far evidence suggests the opposite. And this guy is basically the God Father of the left. Most evidence right now points in the opposite direction.

And Right now people are devastated that no indictments are made against Trump. And Trump team is celebrating that there is no indictments against them. This is what we know so far without knowing what’s in the Muller Report.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ort-filed-with-no-new-indictments-planned.amp


----------



## notimp (Mar 23, 2019)

kuwanger said:


> No, what sucks is that even if the news media had been as brutal as they should have been about how wrong the Iraq war was, it would have done nothing to stop it.  I knew that the second the words were spoken against Iraq because it was the same bullshit logic used to invade Afghanistan.  The only real difference is that over a year had passed and at least some people were actually questioning having a second war, either for logistical concerns or, you know, not being on that vengeance high that justified the first one.


Might be right. Now here is an interesting point. Sometimes, the media is out to "campaign" not just inform the public to gather opposition to current day politics. At least it was in the day before twitter.

They then use arguments on moral grounds (commentary), which they are prohibited to use in news reporting. News reporting in the past specifically for that reason was done without giving a larger context (than just "topic of the week/month").

Now, the legitimacy of going into war, is basically decided by public opinion. At least since vietnam, that seemed to be the case. In current days, the PR is better, people are more complacent towards figures of power, but there is also the inkling, that actually a large segment is willing to sustain an economy, by going to war. There had to be "war fatigue" (generational thing again, you may have to wait 30 years for your next one..  ), for america to start changing their foreign policy.

Now the european economy is shifted into "having to think more about military needs" instead.

So - in foreign politics there is no moral guideline regarding defense budgets (neologism) really. Also, hot tip - wars are never just.  Media will always align with the administrations position, eventually - is what I'm saying. Public opinion may be more difficult to sway or not. Whats fake and whats not is only defined afterwards.

At the time there is only a popular opinion, and critical voices. In news reporting, the media isn't supposed to be always right. They arent supposed to be moral. They are supposed to bring you all sides of the argument. (= Commentary from one outlet usually doesnt.) And they hardly ever do it facing off the positions on page one.


----------



## leon315 (Mar 23, 2019)

Could Impeachment day ever come? On the last day of his mandate??


----------



## Viri (Mar 23, 2019)

Spoiler


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

It’s over it’s done

And I see a bunch of people back pedaling and moving the goal post. News media freaking out. Rachael Maddow crying.

Muller Investigation done, not one single American was charged, indicted or convicted for conspiring with Russia. Not even a low level volunteer. 0 people.

And there is desperate attempts to try to salvage something. Even though we haven’t seen the report.... Yea the public hasn’t read the report. But the Muller Report is over, we know he’s not indicting anymore people, and he has not indicted a single American of Russia Collision conspiracy. It’s over. If there was huge evidence then he would’ve done it by now.

I’m just so amazed that people dropped all critical thinking pushing this conspiracy theory. All they needed was one evidence, just one and none have ever came up. And there was so much counter evidence against it. The media that was pushing this is so trash. They are garbage.


----------



## Viri (Mar 23, 2019)

Drumpf is finish, any day now he's going to walk out in chains, along with the entire criminal Republican party. Then Nancy Pelosi will become President, until we elect a progressive President next year.

His jumpsuit is going to match his skin color! XD


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Not even weird at all. This will be devastating to the Democratic Party if no collusion is found. People won’t have faith in mainstream media.


Mueller is a Republican.  Who was appointed by a Republican.  After Trump appointed that Republican to be deputy AG.  This was never a political investigation, and Trump has absolutely nobody to blame but himself.  It wasn't that long ago that he brought Russians into the oval office to laugh about firing Comey.



SG854 said:


> It’s over it’s done
> 
> And I see a bunch of people back pedaling and moving the goal post. News media freaking out. Rachael Maddow crying.


You just can't help yourself, can you?  Not a damn thing has changed, the report still isn't public.  Keep spinning your wheels though, maybe _somebody_ is buying the act.


----------



## Viri (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Mueller is a Republican.  Who was appointed by a Republican.  After Trump appointed that Republican to be deputy AG.  This was never a political investigation, and Trump has absolutely nobody to blame but himself.  It wasn't that long ago that he brought Russians into the oval office to laugh about firing Comey.
> 
> 
> You just can't help yourself, can you?  Not a damn thing has changed, the report still isn't public.  Keep spinning your wheels though, maybe _somebody_ is buying the act.



see




Viri said:


> Drumpf is finish, any day now he's going to walk out in chains, along with the entire criminal Republican party. Then Nancy Pelosi will become President, until we elect a progressive President next year.
> 
> His jumpsuit is going to match his skin color! XD


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

Viri said:


> Drumpf is finish, any day now he's going to walk out in chains, along with the entire criminal Republican party. Then Nancy Pelosi will become President, until we elect a progressive President next year.
> 
> His jumpsuit is going to match his skin color! XD


I wish I shared your optimism, but the Republican Senate won't convict Trump of impeachable crimes regardless of how much evidence there might be.  I don't think he's going to walk away unscathed, either, however.  There are currently nine other criminal investigations ongoing into Trump, his businesses, and his associates.  We're only going to continue getting more sordid details as all these cases work their way through discovery.


----------



## piratesephiroth (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I wish I shared your optimism, but the Republican Senate won't convict Trump of impeachable crimes regardless of how much evidence there might be.  I don't think he's going to walk away unscathed, either, however.  There are currently nine other criminal investigations ongoing into Trump, his businesses, and his associates.  We're only going to continue getting more sordid details as all these cases work their way through discovery.



I hope you enjoy this delicious nothingburger and the others yet to come.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I wish I shared your optimism, but the Republican Senate won't convict Trump of impeachable crimes regardless of how much evidence there might be.  I don't think he's going to walk away unscathed, either, however.  There are currently nine other criminal investigations ongoing into Trump, his businesses, and his associates.  We're only going to continue getting more sordid details as all these cases work their way through discovery.



can the republicans in congress (especially the one who intimidated cohen to silence him) be charged? namely under corruption because not even considering impeachment when it's basicly spelled out he's a criminal (saddly i feel even if trump is shown to have done warcrimes the republican's won't budge), Muller should've started looking at congress for criminal conduct first and indite them, you know set up the house of cards trump at the top just to fall


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

chrisrlink said:


> can the republicans in congress (especially the one who intimidated cohen to silence him) be charged? namely under corruption because not even considering impeachment when it's basicly spelled out he's a criminal (saddly i feel even if trump is shown to have done warcrimes the republican's won't budge), Muller should've started looking at congress for criminal conduct first and indite them, you know set up the house of cards trump at the top just to fall


They certainly could be charged with witness tampering if there's enough evidence there, but I think the focus of Mueller's probe was a little too narrow for that.  Hopefully the report does point out every notable instance of obstruction of justice regardless.



piratesephiroth said:


> I hope you enjoy this delicious nothingburger and the others yet to come.


If we found out tomorrow that Trump impregnated his daughter when she was 13 and then made her get an abortion, Republicans would call it a nothingburger.  He could start any war, for any reason, and his supporters would not question it.  Thankfully the other 60% of the country is still willing to listen to logic and reason.


----------



## Zeldaplayer67 (Mar 23, 2019)

The Gbatemp civil war coming to threads near you.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Not even weird at all. This will be devastating to the Democratic Party if no collusion is found. People won’t have faith in mainstream media. They will see him a victim of false allegations on the Trump Russia deal without any proof to begin with. It’s not about him become of president on accident. Will they apologize if no evidence come out but they were pretending there was this mountain of evidence. Many people lives have been ruined from this investigation. And lots of money has been spent to fight this legally. This damaged a lot of things. And Trump will have to pardon a lot of people.
> 
> And so far evidence shows that Trump has been going against the wishes of Russia and Putin, showing he is not an agent of Putin. There are no more indictments from Muller, and none that connect Trump to Russia. If he had the evidence he would of done indictments by now. You have Noam Chomsky the world most renowned intellect saying that their is no evidence to suggest that Trump is a agent of Putin, so far evidence suggests the opposite. And this guy is basically the God Father of the left. Most evidence right now points in the opposite direction.
> 
> ...


Ever considered the opposite? If all the witnesses, evidence and convictions DO point out to a narrative where Trump has done illegal acts, then the white house is compromised as well as a large part of the republican party. How do you think that'll hold up in terms of faith in their political parties?

If false allegations are a crime, who is really the culprit? The whole investigation could've happened well under the radar and away from the press, but where Mueller made barely any public statement, Trump twittered about it on a daily basis.
Oh, and...the allegations are stated on solid grounds. It would be a different thing if there was no evidence, but there are already quite some convictions. It's about a year too late to still call it a witch hunt.

And...I don't think you understand how evidence works. As investigators, it's THEIR task to search and come up with evidence of what they are investigating (which, again, is aimed at the people AROUND Trump. I know fox news makes it seem as if Mueller was doing bad at doing something else, but he has some very good results in his task at hand). Saying "there is evidence that he is innocent" is ridiculous. You can hardly prove something that didn't happen.

Trump being victorious is to be expected. That's just how he is: downplaying losses to give the impression of winning to his fan base. The North Korean summits were so successful that Kim Jong-Un left suddenly. The Mexican wall was so successful that the government shutdown was ended AND a shutdown was stuck in limbo. And those are just the most glaring examples. So please...don't pretend that the white house is somehow an objective source in this matter.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 23, 2019)

After acting so dodgy about being investigated, I hope the report says Trump did nothing wrong and paints him like an angel. It would be the greatest troll of all time.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> After acting so dodgy about being investigated, I hope the report says Trump did nothing wrong and paints him like an angel. It would be the greatest troll of all time.


Even CNN is saying that that is is a victory for Trump.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2019/03/22/cnn-mueller-report-vindicates-trump


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Even CNN is saying that that is is a victory for Trump.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2019/03/22/cnn-mueller-report-vindicates-trump


Says an article from the Daily Caller.  Just post the CNN article if it's actually about that, but odds are it isn't.  And fuck CNN anyway, they don't speak for Democrats.  No one outlet does.

I don't know how many times I gotta repeat it: 

*NOBODY.  HAS.  SEEN.  THE.  REPORT.  YET.*

Least of all CNN.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Even CNN is saying that that is is a victory for Trump.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.dailycaller.com/2019/03/22/cnn-mueller-report-vindicates-trump


I didn't realize it's already out
This is gold.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> I didn't realize it's already out
> This is gold.


It isn't out.  And the Daily Caller is a tabloid-level website.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 23, 2019)

Then why are people saying he's vindicated? I'm confused.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 23, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> Then why are people saying he's vindicated? I'm confused.


Propaganda.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> I didn't realize it's already out
> This is gold.


It’s not out yet. But c’mon it’s pretty much not much else to say. And Rachael Maddie was on the verge of crying. It’s realization that the narrative they were pushing is a lie.

They did start investigation in Hillary Clinton and Ukraine collusion. Finally after people have been calling for it for yrs.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/4491...ial-opens-investigation-alleged-ryan-saavedra

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Snugglevixen said:


> Then why are people saying he's vindicated? I'm confused.


They say well the president can’t be indicted by Muller. Which is a ridiculous argument, because they could indict his aids, if Trump colluded then they would have indicted his aids. But 0 indictments.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Which is a ridiculous argument, because they could indict his aids, if Trump colluded then they would have indicted his aids. But 0 indictments.


What counts as an "aid"? Because many people working directly for Trump have already been indicted and sentenced...


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> What counts as an "aid"? Because many people working directly for Trump have already been indicted and sentenced...


None have to do with Russia Collusion. Which is the main focus. If it wasn’t then Trumps team wouldn’t be celebrating right now.

And some of the indictments were for shady reasons. Trump is going to have to pardon a bunch of people going to jail over this.

Here’s a whistle blower from the NSA debunking some of the indictments. This is why I thought the investigation was ridiculous. Because whistle blowers from the inside were calling out this bullshit.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> What counts as an "aid"? Because many people working directly for Trump have already been indicted and sentenced...


Also a close friend of his, Roger Stone, for communicating with both Wikileaks and Russian intelligence.



SG854 said:


> And some of the indictments were for shady reasons.


Stop spreading bullshit in this thread please.  Mueller's team hasn't indicted anyone without first gathering mountains of evidence against them.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Also a close friend of his, Roger Stone, for communicating with both Wikileaks and Russian intelligence.
> 
> 
> Stop spreading bullshit in this thread please.  Mueller's team hasn't indicted anyone without first gathering mountains of evidence against them.


Okay whatever you say buddy. I’m sure you don’t even know what NSA guy is talking about.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 23, 2019)

Look, there is propaganda coming from all sides. You may favor the right, or conservatives, or Republicans. You may hate Hillary. Ok fine, that's cool. But you are doing nobody a favor by trying to support or defend the corrupt group of people in power currently. Trump and many of his associates have been shown, among cavernous troves of evidence, to be nothing more than self-serving, lying, greedy, power-grabbing anti-intellectuals who are serving no one's interests except their own. They have committed many crimes, and some of them have been exposed by Mueller's investigations. Hey, maybe there isn't any collusion. But there sure as hell were attempts to profit from positions of high power through illegal and/or traitorous means. If you truly want "your side" to be heard and respected, you would be trying your damnedest to remove this fool and his administration, lest they further taint the principles you hold dear with lies and deceit.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Look, there is propaganda coming from all sides. You may favor the right, or conservatives, or Republicans. You may hate Hillary. Ok fine, that's cool. But you are doing nobody a favor by trying to support or defend the corrupt group of people in power currently. Trump and many of his associates have been shown, among cavernous troves of evidence, to be nothing more than self-serving, lying, greedy, power-grabbing anti-intellectuals who are serving no one's interests except their own. They have committed many crimes, and some of them have been exposed by Mueller's investigations. Hey, maybe there isn't any collusion. But there sure as hell were attempts to profit from positions of high power through illegal and/or traitorous means. If you truly want "your side" to be heard and respected, you would be trying your damnedest to remove this fool and his administration, lest they further taint the principles you hold dear with lies and deceit.


I do think Trump is perfect. And I don’t want him to win again. But this has damaged any chance of Trump not winning 2020. If they never pushed this Russia Gate to begin with then the other canidates would have had a chance to win.

But they shot themselves in the foot by pushing this conspiracy theory. No one is going to believe the media now, even when Trump actually does something bad.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> But they shot themselves in the foot by pushing this conspiracy theory. No one is going to believe the media now, even when Trump actually does something bad.


What the fuck are you even talking about at this point?  Mueller is not the media, and we're about to see a 50+ page report detailing his investigation and evidence.  Conspiracy theories don't work like that.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 23, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Look, there is propaganda coming from all sides. You may favor the right, or conservatives, or Republicans. You may hate Hillary. Ok fine, that's cool. But you are doing nobody a favor by trying to support or defend the corrupt group of people in power currently. Trump and many of his associates have been shown, among cavernous troves of evidence, to be nothing more than self-serving, lying, greedy, power-grabbing anti-intellectuals who are serving no one's interests except their own. They have committed many crimes, and some of them have been exposed by Mueller's investigations. Hey, maybe there isn't any collusion. But there sure as hell were attempts to profit from positions of high power through illegal and/or traitorous means. If you truly want "your side" to be heard and respected, you would be trying your damnedest to remove this fool and his administration, lest they further taint the principles you hold dear with lies and deceit.



Thank you. Seeing a liberal unironically saying these things as if it doesn't apply _at_ _least_ equally to the leadership of their side/party is probably the best bit of humor I'll see all week.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Thank you. Seeing a liberal unironically saying these things as if it doesn't apply _at_ _least_ equally to the leadership of their side/party is probably the best bit of humor I'll see all week.


Corporate Democrats are just as bad. They pretend to be for the people but they’re not.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

Looks like the report won't be outside of the hands of the AG/deputy AG until tomorrow:



			
				NYTimes said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr and his team on Saturday pored over the highly anticipated report by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, a senior Justice Department official said, preparing to deliver the investigation’s “principal conclusions” to jittery lawmakers and President Trump as soon as Sunday.
> 
> Mr. Barr and Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general who appointed Mr. Mueller and oversaw much of his work, were cloistered inside the Justice Department debating how to present the findings. Mr. Mueller was not participating in the process, the official said.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/us/politics/mueller-report-russia-inquiry.html

As before, any "celebrating" from either side up until then is simply speculative and should be taken with a huge grain of salt.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Thank you. Seeing a liberal unironically saying these things as if it doesn't apply _at_ _least_ equally to the leadership of their side/party is probably the best bit of humor I'll see all week.


Not liberal. I'm registered independent. Also, the "both sides are equal" argument is asinine and tribal. Finally, I'm not attacking any "side" or party. Trump and his administration are objectively bad and should be removed from power. It's not a bipartisan issue, this fucks over the whole country. Wake up, this isn't some petty "but your side" game where we fling shit at each other, Trump is OBJECTIVELY BAD. He lies, insults, rants, uses social media irresponsibly, is terrible at official meetings with other people of power. He's a fucking embarrassment to the entire goddamn country, liberals conservative or what the fuck ever you call yourself. Step outside your bubble and take in the swathes of direct, primary evidence of terrible conduct demonstrated by this fool. Nobody's perfect, especially not this pathetic excuse of a representative of 100's of MILLIONS of people.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 23, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Not liberal. I'm registered independent.



Ok, apologies for that then. Changing my registration to (I) is something I personally need to get to. Believe it or not, I'm registered (D) lol. Thirty-five years ago, when I first registered, that was certainly true of my positions and beliefs. But I've aged and the (D) party has lost its mind. Jack Kennedy wouldn't have anything to do with those commie weirdos.



> Also, the "both sides are equal" argument is asinine and tribal.



That wasn't my point. It was more about corruption being universal and non-partisan, and a human constant. As common folk, we each select the platform that aligns with our personal policy beliefs .. but it should be with the knowledge and understanding that those who hold the offices of power will be skimming for themselves and perverting the system to their own ends while somewhat representing that platform. In that respect, both sides _are_ equal and it will always be so. Human nature.



> Trump and his administration are objectively bad and should be removed from power. It's not a bipartisan issue, this fucks over the whole country. Wake up, this isn't some petty "but your side" game where we fling shit at each other, Trump is OBJECTIVELY BAD. He lies, insults, rants, uses social media irresponsibly, is terrible at official meetings with other people of power. He's a fucking embarrassment to the entire goddamn country, liberals conservative or what the fuck ever you call yourself. Step outside your bubble and take in the swathes of direct, primary evidence of terrible conduct demonstrated by this fool. Nobody's perfect, especially not this pathetic excuse of a representative of 100's of MILLIONS of people.



On this we'll just have to disagree. And the fact that you think this tells me you haven't been around long enough to know what the hell you're talking about, and you're too impressionable. I'm looking around and see things mostly same or better than they were a few years ago.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 23, 2019)

He TWEETS direct NUCLEAR THREATS targeting other countries. He rambles for many, many sentences without saying a single thing. He childishly insults other people, people of power, our ALLIES, in FRONT of them. He DENIES the proven climate change, promoting COAL, an EXTREME CATALYST of climate change. The White House had CENSORED official data on climate change. It's so fucking clear he's a step backward for ALL people of the world, let alone American citizens. He lifted sanctions against our ENEMY, the ENEMY that has been proven over and over again to be INFLUENCING OUR POLITICS. If you don't open your eyes, you'll blindly march off a cliff.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 23, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> He TWEETS direct NUCLEAR THREATS targeting other countries. He rambles for many, many sentences without saying a single thing. He childishly insults other people, people of power, our ALLIES, in FRONT of them. He DENIES the proven climate change, promoting COAL, an EXTREME CATALYST of climate change. The White House had CENSORED official data on climate change. It's so fucking clear he's a step backward for ALL people of the world, let alone American citizens. He lifted sanctions against our ENEMY, the ENEMY that has been proven over and over again to be INFLUENCING OUR POLITICS. If you don't open your eyes, you'll blindly march off a cliff.



I think you're prone to hyperbole, but you just listed a lot of reasons why I'll be voting for him again. Not all, but a lot of them.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> But I've aged and the (D) party has lost its mind. Jack Kennedy wouldn't have anything to do with those commie weirdos.


Dude, the party has grown considerably more centrist and tame since the days of FDR.  Kennedy probably wouldn't have anything to do with Dems now only because they've conceded too much ground to the right-wing.  At least the younger members of Congress are staying true to our progressive roots.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> He TWEETS direct NUCLEAR THREATS targeting other countries. He rambles for many, many sentences without saying a single thing. He childishly insults other people, people of power, our ALLIES, in FRONT of them. He DENIES the proven climate change, promoting COAL, an EXTREME CATALYST of climate change. The White House had CENSORED official data on climate change. It's so fucking clear he's a step backward for ALL people of the world, let alone American citizens. He lifted sanctions against our ENEMY, the ENEMY that has been proven over and over again to be INFLUENCING OUR POLITICS. If you don't open your eyes, you'll blindly march off a cliff.


John Stewart also praises Trumps Justice Department for doing an excellent job at administering the program for 9/11 first responders. Something previous administrations didn’t address properly. Which the media ignores because all they want to report is only stuff that bashes Trump all day.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/jon-stewart-shames-media-for-ignoring-911-first-responders


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> John Stewart also praises Trumps Justice Department for doing an excellent job at administering the program for 9/11 first responders. Something previous administrations didn’t address properly. Which the media ignores because all they want to report is only stuff that bashes Trump all day.
> 
> https://www.thedailybeast.com/jon-stewart-shames-media-for-ignoring-911-first-responders


"Which the media ignores"

>Proceeds to link to media source


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "Which the media ignores"
> 
> >Proceeds to link to media source


Yet source says John Stewart shames media for ignoring 9/11 responders


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Yet source says John Stewart shames media for ignoring 9/11 responders


Which is silly in itself considering he knew some outlets would report on his comments.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Which is silly in itself considering he knew some outlets would report on his comments.


You really don’t understand context. Or the context of the situation.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> You really don’t understand context.


I absolutely do.  It's just that you're not saying what you mean.  You're saying "media," but you mean to say, "24-hour TV news outlets," which is also something Stewart should've been more specific about.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I absolutely do.  It's just that you're not saying what you mean.  You're saying "media," but you mean to say, "24-hour TV news outlets," which is also something Stewart should've been more specific about.


Well he said media it could also be written media also. He bashed them for ignoring them in the previous years. This article is from last month. It took that long and Trumps administration to finally take care of first responders. This is something he’s been trying to get for years.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Well he said media it could also be written media also. He bashed them for ignoring them in the previous years. This article is from last month. It took that long and Trumps administration to finally take care of first responders. This is something he’s been trying to get for years.


I feel like this is a half-truth and that if a bill was passed it was with mostly Democratic support.  I don't care enough to do the research right now though, and this has nothing to do with the thread topic.


----------



## Costello (Mar 24, 2019)

How about some facts for a change?

List of people found guilty so far:


































source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ken-by-people-associated-with-trump-campaign/

Ongoing investigations against Trump
- Inaugural committee $107 million fraud
- Hush money investigation (stormy daniels)
- Obstruction of justice in russia investigation
- Illegal white house security clearances
- 2016 tax returns investigation
- Trump foundation investigation
- Moscow Trump tower project
- Sexual assault (Summer Zervos)
- Michael Cohen legal fee lawsuit 

source: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/20/18241825/trump-investigations-sdny-inauguration-state-congress

I don't think most Americans realize how this looks from the outside. Take a guess 
And of course the funniest part is, a large portion of people still think this guy is great and want him reelected.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Costello said:


> How about some facts for a change?
> 
> List of people found guilty so far:
> 
> ...


I already know about those facts they been out for months. Those indictment have nothing to do with Russia collision, which is what the whole thing is about, and could’ve been handled seperatly from Muller by the justice system. If there was collusion muller would have indicted people for that but there was no charges of collusion right now.

I can tell you that the list is outdated because it has obstruction of justice in the investigation which has been confirmed yesterday there was no obstruction.

I don’t think much will come from the Stormy Daniels one.

And those other ones are ongoing investigations yet to be proven. There’s another one you can add to the list Trump lying about his wealth.


----------



## Fugelmir (Mar 24, 2019)

Costello said:


> How about some facts for a change?
> 
> I don't think most Americans realize how this looks from the outside. Take a guess
> And of course the funniest part is, a large portion of people still think this guy is great and want him reelected.



I look at the United States as the greatest country in the world with an excellent albeit stupid leader.  Most of the indictments and charges won't ever go anywhere and the ones that do will probably be successfully defended by the president by the actions taken being "independent."  

The Clinton foundation activity is much more sinister.  Becoming a leader of such a nation would always require some sleight of hand, shifty tactics so you have to expect some level of deceit: they're politicians after all.

Best president I've seen in my life by a long shot.  I'm jealous, we have a substitute drama teacher acting as our prime minister banning fossil fuels, killing off our main source of income.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Costello said:


> How about some facts for a change?
> 
> List of people found guilty so far:
> 
> ...


Some of those are bank fraud or identity theft. Crimes that individuals committed that have nothing to do with Trump or Russia. And could’ve been handled separately from Muller.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Fugelmir said:


> I look at the United States as the greatest country in the world with an excellent albeit stupid leader.  Most of the indictments and charges won't ever go anywhere and the ones that do will probably be successfully defended by the president by the actions taken being "independent."
> 
> The Clinton foundation activity is much more sinister.  Becoming a leader of such a nation would always require some sleight of hand, shifty tactics so you have to expect some level of deceit: they're politicians after all.
> 
> Best president I've seen in my life by a long shot.  I'm jealous, we have a substitute drama teacher acting as our prime minister banning fossil fuels, killing off our main source of income.



There is investigation right now for Clinton and Ukrainian Collusion.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> I look at the United States as the greatest country in the world with an excellent albeit stupid leader.


If he's stupid, it precludes him from being an excellent leader.  You can't be an excellent leader who defers to dictators.



Fugelmir said:


> I'm jealous, we have a substitute drama teacher acting as our prime minister banning fossil fuels, killing off our main source of income.


"I'm jealous that you guys have a leader who does nothing about the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters in the US."

Oookay then.  I'd gladly take gas at ten cents higher per gallon in exchange for leadership I can trust to handle things competently.



SG854 said:


> There is investigation right now for Clinton and Ukrainian Collusion.


LOOOOOL.  Holy fuck.  I swear to god that Hillary is going to live in every Republican's brain rent-free until they die.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If he's stupid, it precludes him from being an excellent leader.  You can't be an excellent leader who defers to dictators.
> 
> 
> "I'm jealous that you guys have a leader who does nothing about the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters in the US."
> ...


Serious

https://www.dailywire.com/news/4491...ial-opens-investigation-alleged-ryan-saavedra

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> If he's stupid, it precludes him from being an excellent leader.  You can't be an excellent leader who defers to dictators.
> 
> 
> "I'm jealous that you guys have a leader who does nothing about the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters in the US."
> ...


The investigation is not being done by Americans it’s done by Ukrainians.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Serious
> 
> https://www.dailywire.com/news/4491...ial-opens-investigation-alleged-ryan-saavedra


Oh, I thought you meant a US investigation.  One that would actually matter.  Ukraine opening an investigation into her kinda just proves the point that they don't like her.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh, I thought you meant a US investigation.  One that would actually matter.  Ukraine opening an investigation into her kinda just proves the point that they don't like her.


Its an investigation into members of their own government boosting Hillary. They are looking into ties between Clinton and the Ukrainian government.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Its an investigation into members of their own government boosting Hillary. They are looking into ties between Clinton and the Ukrainian government.


Of course they are lol.  Ukraine is owned by Russia now and has been for some time.  Again, this just shows how much Russia dislikes Hillary.  You should be questioning the fact that they never looked into oligarchs boosting Trump from their side.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Of course they are lol.  Ukraine is owned by Russia now and has been for some time.  Again, this just shows how much Russia dislikes Hillary.  You should be questioning the fact that they never looked into oligarchs boosting Trump from their side.


If they are owned by Russians then why are the putting sanctions on Russians?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/29832844.html


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If they are owned by Russians then why are the putting sanctions on Russians?
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rferl.org/amp/29832844.html


I should clarify: ideologically, and in most ways that matter, Ukraine is owned by Russia.  Including that they believe in "an eye for an eye," so this investigation simply feels like a response to the US investigation into Trump.  Which makes it seem even _more_ like Trump is colluding with entities in/around Russia rofl.

For fuck's sake, you think *Hillary Clinton* would've gone to the lengths of recruiting the help of a foreign government, just to _lose_ the election?  Use your damn brain.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

@Costello So this is about Russia collusion. And here’s some evidence to show that Trump is not working for Russians.

They deployed troops to Russian Borders and put stiff financial sanctions on Russians.

He try’s to overthrow the Venezuelan government which is Russia doesn’t want.

He’s Putting Sanctions on the German-Russian pipeline which Russia doesn’t want.

He pulled out of the INF treaty which is a huge threat to Russia. And when you watch videos of Putin talking about it he seems upset.

He bombed Syria twice which Russia doesn’t want. They warned the U.S. not to do it.

So this whole investigation is if Trump colluded with Russia and is a puppet of Putin right. So why is Trump continuously doing things against the wishes of Russia? Wasn’t the deal that I help you win election and you give me something back in return. So why is Trump doing things the opposite of what Putin wants. Evidence suggest the opposite of collusion.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh, I thought you meant a US investigation.  One that would actually matter.  *Ukraine opening an investigation into her kinda just proves the point that they don't like her.*




You could say that about a lot of politically motivated "investigations."


----------



## GBAer (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> @Costello So this is about Russia collusion. And here’s some evidence to show that Trump is not working for Russians.
> 
> They deployed troops to Russian Borders and put stiff financial sanctions on Russians.
> 
> ...


The ignoring these very important facts is a known symptom of TDS.


----------



## tatripp (Mar 24, 2019)

It's amazing that some people want our president to be a Russian agent so badly that they won't accept the evidence that he is not. They should be happy, but happiness would require them to admit that they were on a wild goose chase the whole time.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

GBAer said:


> The ignoring these very important facts is a known symptom of TDS.


The first article I linked says U.S. troops deployed in Eastern Europe as check on Russian aggression. And it mentions how Putin retaliated. The date of the article is 2017, lieterally the first year Trump became president. Right away he started putting sanctions on Russians the first year. So much for being an agent of Putin.


----------



## GBAer (Mar 24, 2019)

tatripp said:


> It's amazing that some people want our president to be a Russian agent so badly that they won't accept the evidence that he is not. They should be happy, but happiness would require them to admit that they were on a wild goose chase the whole time.





SG854 said:


> The first article I linked says U.S. troops deployed in Eastern Europe as check on Russian aggression. And it mentions how Putin retaliated. The date of the article is 2017, lieterally the first year Trump became president. Right away he started putting sanctions on Russians the first year. So much for being an agent of Putin.


I know, right, and anyone still claiming that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election are fucking idiots


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 24, 2019)

GBAer said:


> I know, right, and anyone still claiming that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 election are fucking idiots


Here comes the maga hat wearers run!!!!!!!!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You could say that about a lot of politically motivated "investigations."


Absolutely, but the Mueller investigation was not politically motivated.  It was created by a worried Republican deputy AG after Trump fired the head of the FBI and then brought Russians into the oval office to gloat that the "pressure is off."


----------



## Likeinside (Mar 24, 2019)

Tasty!


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Mar 24, 2019)

*Trump-Russia inquiry: President 'did not conspire with Russia'*

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47688187


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

El bumparoonie, a short summary of the report has been released.  OP is updated.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Hillary Clinton deleted 33,000 emails, wiped servers clean, she told her aids to break blackberries with a hammer to destroy evidence. The Dossier was purchased by Clinton and it’s in the a dossier itself that it was purchased by her, but written in a very criptic way.

This whole investigation was corruption from Hillary from the beginning.



JoeBloggs777 said:


> *Trump-Russia inquiry: President 'did not conspire with Russia'*
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47688187


The Russia Narrative is dead.

Findings do not exonerate Trump. They might have something else other the Russia Collusion but we’ll see.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Finding do not exonerate Trump. The Russia Naraative is dead.


You know what "the findings don't exonerate" Trump means, right?  It means that this report has not cleared him of all criminal suspicion, and another investigation could potentially go on to use the Mueller report's evidence for prosecutorial purposes.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You know what "the findings don't exonerate" Trump means, right?  It means that this report has not cleared him of all criminal suspicion, and another investigation could potentially go on to use the Mueller report's evidence for prosecutorial purposes.


The Muller Report says the Russia narrative is dead. It’s done.

Just let his conspiracy theory die already. They just don’t want to let this narrative die. It’s going to be a never ending investigation because they don’t want to let it go.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 24, 2019)

This was mostly what I expected would happen.

When it comes to high profile politicians like Trump, the ability to establish motive beyond a reasonable doubt in these kinds of obstruction of justice cases is pretty important. In other words, even if it looks like Trump obstructed justice (in my opinion, it does), one has to demonstrate that those actions were because of a direct attempt by Trump to obstruct justice. It's very similar to the Bob McDonnell corruption case and why his conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court. In a nutshell, Bob McDonnell was apparently engaged in what looked like a quid pro quo situation while in office, but motive couldn't be established. Reading about that case might make the topic of Trump's possible obstruction of justice make more sense.

Everyone should understand that this doesn't exonerate Trump when it comes to obstruction of justice. The outline of the report admits it's a gray area for the reasons I explained above, and there might be evidence to support an obstruction of justice argument. However, since they can't prove an obstruction of justice motive, Barr isn't going to indict Trump. The report doesn't make a judgement one way or the other.

With regard to Russia collusion, it was unlikely they were going to be able to demonstrate it, regardless of whether or not it happened. The report also reiterated that Russia did indeed meddle with the election; they just can't prove they worked with Trump's campaign when doing so.

With regard to Trump's many other scandals, this report doesn't address them.


----------



## Steena (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Muller Report says the Russia narrative is dead. It’s done.
> 
> Just let his conspiracy theory die already. They just don’t want to let this narrative die. It’s going to be a never ending investigation because they don’t want to let it go.


They cannot. The only path forward is maximum conviction after the delusion stage has set in deep. If they  backpedal it'll be a big wake up call on being a hivemind of idiots. This is never going to end, as you can see, you already see talk of the next round. It's like a flat earther needing one more test after test #739 has failed. Some political issues, when it comes to brainwashed cultists, you can just do nothing about. See climate change for the opposite side. Both are alex jones levels of conspiraces taken to their own extreme end and no dialogue works.
You can only probably start with a press that isn't made up of activists wearing their activist bias like a badge of honor, hiring professionals instead. That'll be a start. The US has a big problem with that currently.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Muller Report says the Russia narrative is dead. It’s done.
> 
> Just let his conspiracy theory die already. They just don’t want to let this narrative die. *It’s going to be a never ending investigation because they don’t want to let it go.*




Well, they wanted to keep it hot until the end of the election next year, anyway.


----------



## VartioArtel (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Muller Report says the Russia narrative is dead. It’s done.
> 
> Just let his conspiracy theory die already. They just don’t want to let this narrative die. It’s going to be a never ending investigation because they don’t want to let it go.



I'm politically neutral, when Republicans do stuff right, I'd praise it.

This however? This only protects Trump from Russian Collusion. The long of it is that yes, Trump's innocent of collusion, but that he still has countless other potential charges he can be impeached over. The government has the ***duty*** (I emphasize that word) to keep corruption out. It doesn't matter how politically minded it is to pursue it, but it's the job of each party, and their own members, to constantly pursue a clean government free of corruption. If Trump has done anything impeachable, it is our government's duty to get rid of him and any accomplices.

Of course, I don't expect them to do it, but this is what I would hope any non-emotionally driven individual would desire as well.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The Muller Report says the Russia narrative is dead. It’s done.


This isn't even the report, just Barr's summary.  And it absolutely does not say anything like that.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This isn't even the report, just Barr's summary.  And it absolutely does not say anything like that.


In fairness, based on the summary, the topic of Russia collusion is probably dead. There are plenty of very real scandals that Trump still has to deal with, such as his demonstrable attempts to break campaign finance law.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> In fairness, based on the summary, the topic of Russia collusion is probably dead. There are plenty of very real scandals that Trump still has to deal with, such as his demonstrable attempts to break campaign finance law.


True.  Worth noting however that the report concludes there WAS interference by Russia in the 2016 US election.  They just couldn't find evidence of contacts between the group that executed the interference and members of the Trump cabinet.

You're right that this will likely be the only investigation into collusion, but hopefully it provides some useful evidence for the other 9+ ongoing criminal investigations involving Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> True.  Worth noting however that the report concludes there WAS interference by Russia in the 2016 US election.  They just couldn't find evidence of contacts between the group that executed the interference and members of the Trump cabinet.
> 
> You're right that this will likely be the only investigation into collusion, but hopefully it provides some useful evidence for the other 9+ ongoing criminal investigations involving Trump.





Lacius said:


> The report also reiterated that Russia did indeed meddle with the election; they just can't prove they worked with Trump's campaign when doing so.


Also, it is worth noting that we probably haven't heard the last of Trump's alleged obstruction of justice. It may be included in articles of impeachment (a la Nixon and Clinton) if/when he is impeached for this and/or something else. Whether or not an attorney general chose to pursue obstruction of justice charges against the sitting president who nominated them has always been irrelevant.


----------



## VartioArtel (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're right that this will likely be the only investigation into collusion, but hopefully it provides some useful evidence for the other 9+ ongoing criminal investigations involving Trump.



There's no way that Mueller hasn't gotten evidence towards countless other issues involving Trump. While there may be no proof of COLLUSION, I wonder if there's proof of bribery (aka paying him from an oligarch and that lead to 'favorable' but not definitely biased treatment).


----------



## Lacius (Mar 24, 2019)

VartioArtel said:


> There's no way that Mueller hasn't gotten evidence towards countless other issues involving Trump. While there may be no proof of COLLUSION, I wonder if there's proof of bribery (aka paying him from an oligarch and that lead to 'favorable' but not definitely biased treatment).


Mueller's scope was very narrow. As soon as his investigation treaded on something outside his scope, he threw it to someone else (e.g. Michael Cohen's crimes).


----------



## Dominator211 (Mar 24, 2019)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we got em.
This may very well be the end of the United States as we know it. (I'm only half JK)


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Also, it is worth noting that we probably haven't heard the last of Trump's alleged obstruction of justice. It may be included in articles of impeachment (a la Nixon and Clinton) if/when he is impeached for this and/or something else. Whether or not an attorney general chose to pursue obstruction of justice charges against the sitting president who nominated them has always been irrelevant.


I feel like impeachment just got a lot less likely with this report, given how gun-shy Pelosi was already being about the topic.  She's worried that the political fallout would give Trump a boost for 2020, and it's hard to blame her.  Still, Trump could end up crossing the line in more ways than one now that he feels like the pressure is off, and add more fuel to the impeachment fire as a result.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I feel like impeachment just got a lot less likely with this report, given how gun-shy Pelosi was already being about the topic.  She's worried that the political fallout would give Trump a boost for 2020, and it's hard to blame her.  Still, Trump could end up crossing the line in more ways than one now that he feels like the pressure is off, and add more fuel to the impeachment fire as a result.


You are right. It's going to take a "smoking gun" that doesn't require too much thought on the part of the American public to get Trump successfully impeached, let alone starting mere impeachment proceedings in the House. I don't expect him to be impeached at all, and I don't think I'd want it anyway.

However, it's all on the table if/when more evidence of his other alleged crimes are presented, particularly with regard to his alleged campaign finance crimes.


----------



## VartioArtel (Mar 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Mueller's scope was very narrow. As soon as his investigation treaded on something outside his scope, he threw it to someone else (e.g. Michael Cohen's crimes).


Yes, but that's for stuff that was EXCLUSIVELY non-linked to Russian Collusion for Trump. There's still plenty that could still be deemed 'potential links', and link him to a large variety of crimes.

Him being gifted a Condo for example in Ukraine could be seen as a Bribe.

It's REALLY hard to get a bead on the law, so it's hard to say what Mueller DOES have evidence of regarding Trump (or colleagues) that isn't explicitly linked to the Russian Collusion front, but COULD have been depending on how things ended.

This can go a handful of ways. What remains is Trump is clear of collusion. We'll just have to wait for the rest.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 24, 2019)

What a bombshell! The beginning of the end.

The walls are closing in.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> True.  Worth noting however that the report concludes there WAS interference by Russia in the 2016 US election.  They just couldn't find evidence of contacts between the group that executed the interference and members of the Trump cabinet.
> 
> You're right that this will likely be the only investigation into collusion, but hopefully it provides some useful evidence for the other 9+ ongoing criminal investigations involving Trump.


There was interference by Russia but that happens all the time other countries interfere with U.S. elections all the time. You can find dozens of countries doing this. And we interfere with other countries. Noam Chomsky has said that Israel interference in U.S. elections is way worse then what Russia has ever done. And Russia is small fry compared to Israel.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> There was interference by Russia but that happens all the time other countries interfere with U.S. elections all the time.


So if we already knew about it, then the question becomes: why isn't the president taking election security more seriously?  Why has he been lifting sanctions on Russian oligarchs instead of implementing new sanctions for their role in the interference?


----------



## SG854 (Mar 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Also, it is worth noting that we probably haven't heard the last of Trump's alleged obstruction of justice. It may be included in articles of impeachment (a la Nixon and Clinton) if/when he is impeached for this and/or something else. Whether or not an attorney general chose to pursue obstruction of justice charges against the sitting president who nominated them has always been irrelevant.


With Clinton it boosted his popularity. This is why Pelosi isn’t wanting impeachment.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> So if we already knew about it, then the question becomes: why isn't the president taking election security more seriously?  Why has he been lifting sanctions on Russian oligarchs instead of implementing new sanctions for their role in the interference?


I wouldn’t know how you would fight that off. These are many countries involved in interference.


----------



## Fugelmir (Mar 24, 2019)

I am satisfied that this is the result because it damages TDS movement AND mainstream media credibility.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 24, 2019)

Hmm... I admit I was hoping for a smoking gun, but this was somewhat within my line of expectation after Cohen's testimony. What I hate most is that Republicans make all sorts of logical errors in reading the result.

It did not conclude there was no collusion. It states that there is no evidence found for it. How this is seen as a victory is a problem in itself. 

One : Russia did attempt to influence the election. Again: Russia did attempt to influence the election in terms favor. Is this somehow good news if it wasn't coordinated by Trump? I would think not.

Two : obstruction of justice by the president. This is pretty known by anyone not under a rock : trim constantly lying about everything doesn't make the job easier. This hasn't stopped, BTW. It's similar to intimidating the cop that attempts to check whether you were drunk driving : being sober doesn't make the intimidation okay. But as Bart points out  it's not the intention of the investigation to focus on that aspect. That route may still be followed, but it's a completely different crime than the original one  
Basically : if Trump had just let the team do his job, it would've been here much earlier and the USA wouldn't be so polarized. But he just HAD to post everything on Twitter...


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 24, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> It did not conclude there was no collusion. It states that there is no evidence found for it. How this is seen as a victory is a problem in itself.




Your post suggests that you assume something must have happened simply because you've heard the word so many times, or because you just want it to be true. 'No evidence was found to conclude the President colluded with Russians' says it all, unless you're just willing to convict on assumption.

I don't know if your legal system still abides by it, but the foundation of the criminal justice system in the US is innocent until proven guilty. No proof means no proof.

I see people here and elsewhere trying to make hay out of Barr's statement that Mueller found no evidence to conclude that the President committed crimes, but also did not exonerate him. That's because there's no need to exonerate when there's no evidence, nor would it be appropriate for Mueller to make such a declaration. Even a jury doesn't declare someone innocent. They either say "Guilty" or "Not guilty."


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I see people here and elsewhere trying to make hay out of Barr's statement that Mueller found no evidence to conclude that the President committed crimes, but also did not exonerate him. That's because there's no need to exonerate when there's no evidence, nor would it be appropriate for Mueller to make such a declaration. Innocent until proven guilty.


If there was no evidence whatsoever, the report indeed would've exonerated him.  There's obviously going to be _some_ evidence in the full Mueller report, whether that be in the direction of obstruction of justice or collusion, just not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If there was no evidence whatsoever, the report indeed would've exonerated him.  There's obviously going to be _some_ evidence in the full Mueller report, whether that be in the direction of obstruction of justice or collusion, just *not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.*




You mean like Hillary and the secret server, i.e. 'her emails?' That's what Comey said, and that seemed to be good enough for Democrats.

But I disagree that there would have been a declaration of 'exoneration' under any circumstance. "No evidence to suggest" is as explicit a statement of innocence as an investigation like this will give. Like I said above, even a jury doesn't declare a defendant "innocent." It's either "Guilty" or "Not Guilty."


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 24, 2019)

I find it funny that people keep bringing up Hillary, as if anything that happens to her determines rather Trump is guilty or not.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I find it funny that people keep bringing up Hillary, as if anything that happens to her determines rather Trump is guilty or not.


Hillary has been a complete non-factor for the left since she lost the election.  They might as well run her for president on the Republican side in 2020, given how obsessed the right-wing continues to be with her.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

The fact there was nothing to "Russia collusion" gets to a key point about Trump's motivation that the media and the left were never willing to credit -- he *really thought* he was being treated unfairly, and obviously it would appear now for good reason.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 24, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> over 2 years and not 1 lick of evidence supporting the russian collusion!
> Don't you think just 1 of these rabbid dems would have brought out the worse accusations from the beginning, and if not somewhere toward the end?
> They have nothing and they know it!


Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true
https://www.axios.com/mueller-russi...nts-70433acd-9ef7-424d-aa01-b962ae5c9647.html
Just because you refuse to accept reality, doesn't change anything.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> The fact there was nothing to "Russia collusion" gets to a key point about Trump's motivation that the media and the left were never willing to credit -- he *really thought* he was being treated unfairly, and obviously it would appear now for good reason.


Yeah, we all know how unfair investigations targeted at rich, connected individuals can be in this country.  So unfair that they aren't pursuing any criminal charges.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yeah, we all know how unfair investigations targeted at rich, connected individuals can be in this country.  So unfair that they aren't pursuing any criminal charges.



You missed the point again buddy, he thought he was being treated unfairly, it was all a witch hunt. There was no Russian collusion - which feeds into his mindset.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> You missed the point again buddy, he thought he was being treated unfairly, it was all a witch hunt. There was no Russian collusion - which feeds into his mindset.


Trump plays the victim card whenever it's expedient to do so, always has.  The result of this investigation proves the opposite - a witch hunt would've charged him without evidence.  Instead they've gathered evidence and decided against charging him anyway.


----------



## Doran754 (Mar 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Trump plays the victim card whenever it's expedient to do so, always has.  The result of this investigation proves the opposite - a witch hunt would've charged him without evidence.  Instead they've gathered evidence and decided against charging him anyway.



So are you saying it was justified based on their being no evidence of collusion or am i missing something? I'm no expert on the matter, and I'm not saying it was a witch hunt, I'm saying the left won't give him credit of how he saw it.


----------



## CORE (Mar 24, 2019)

Please No More Tears  You even got me started


----------



## Xzi (Mar 24, 2019)

shamzie said:


> So are you saying it was justified based on their being no evidence of collusion or am i missing something?


I'm saying that it was justified based on the fact that it was an entirely by-the-books investigation.  Nothing unusual or outside of protocols occurred.  Painting it as a partisan effort now would also be ridiculous, given that the investigation was established by a Republican deputy AG who Trump personally appointed.


----------



## Glyptofane (Mar 24, 2019)

Hell yea, the potato is innocent! Still switching to Yang over this Israel loving abomination!


----------



## Costello (Mar 25, 2019)

step 1: promise to drain the swamp
step 2: get elected
step 3: make the swamp great again! https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ndustry-influence-investigation-zinke-226106?



> *Recording Reveals Oil Industry Execs Laughing at Trump Access*
> The tape of a private meeting was made shortly after the lawyer for an influential industry group was tapped for a high-level post at the Department of the Interior.



a bit off topic though. On-topic: I'm actually relieved, for the sake of America. I hate the guy but imagine the damage this would have caused if he had been found guilty of this.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Reading it again, I really don't care for how Barr has presented this "summary."  In four pages it actually only has four quotes that come straight from the Mueller report.  I'll assume he's being mostly truthful for now, but we need to see the full report.  It's the only way to know for certain that nothing is being covered up.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I find it funny that people keep bringing up Hillary, as if anything that happens to her determines rather Trump is guilty or not.


Hillary was a big contributor to the investigation. She hired fusion GPS, and payed for the Steele Dossier which was salacious and unverified. The Media kept on pushing it as evidence when there was none to begin with. And now people are trying to damage control just to salvage any little thing they have. 

They were stupid to push his without a single shred of evidence and now they gave Trump ammo to weaponize this against them.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Hillary was a big contributor to the investigation. She hired fusion GPS, and payed for the Steele Dossier which was salacious and unverified.


This is false in so many ways.  Deputy AG Rosenstein started the Mueller investigation, with no connection whatsoever to the Steele dossier.  And the Steele dossier was funded by Trump's primary challengers in the Republican party long before Democrats got their hands on it.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Trump plays the victim card whenever it's expedient to do so, always has.  The result of this investigation proves the opposite - a witch hunt would've charged him without evidence.  Instead they've gathered evidence and decided against charging him anyway.


This attitude is exactly why Trump won. People just don’t get and never learn. And will continue to push Trump to presidency if they never learn and continue this attitude. People should be arguing over policies not conspiracy theories.


----------



## GBAer (Mar 25, 2019)

Costello said:


> step 1: promise to drain the swamp
> step 2: get elected
> step 3: make the swamp great again! https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...ndustry-influence-investigation-zinke-226106?
> 
> ...


Trump found his Cabinet in the swamp.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is false in so many ways.  Deputy AG Rosenstein started the Mueller investigation, with no connection whatsoever to the Steele dossier.  And the Steele dossier was funded by Trump's primary challengers in the Republican party long before Democrats got their hands on it.


It doesn’t matter who started the investigation my original comment wasn’t about who started it. I never said that once in my comment. All I said was she contributed to the conspiracy theory networks were pushing. It’s criminal what she did.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It doesn’t matter who started the investigation my original comment wasn’t about who started it. I never said that once in my comment. All I said was she contributed to the conspiracy theory networks were pushing.


...But the irony is that this itself is a conspiracy theory.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> ...But the irony is that this itself is a conspiracy theory.


No it isn’t. It’s in the dossier itself that she paid for it.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Mar 25, 2019)

I never cared about the collusion report because I always thought if there was actually anything that led to actual collusion, they wouldn't have waited to immediately drop the bomb on poor Dotard. No collusion? Big deal. Doesn't change the fact that he's a misogynistic, narcissistic,  unintelligent, complete loser of a person, and worst "President" in history. Nor does it excuse all of his non-collusion related crimes, compulsive lying, and spreading of hatred.

tl;dr No collusion = still a dotard


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> No it isn’t. It’s in the dossier itself that she paid for it.


Yes, after Trump's Republican primary challengers paid for it first.  It's called opposition research, and it happens in literally every election.  So perhaps I'm just failing to see your point.  Ultimately nobody used the dossier's claims against him during the campaign.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 25, 2019)

All this build up and media attention only to turn out inconclusive.

This is even better than the timeline where DT trolls us into thinking he's hiding something only to turn out to be an angel.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> This is even better than the timeline where DT trolls us into thinking he's hiding something only to turn out to be an angel.


So the continued possibility that the president is a criminal is better than knowing he's for sure innocent?  I'd have to disagree.  The space we're in now is quite nebulous.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 25, 2019)

Imagine if Trump is holding onto evidence that would exonerate him and indict Clinton this whole time, and he's just waiting for the 2020 election to show it.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, after Trump's Republican primary challengers paid for it first.  It's called opposition research, and it happens in literally every election.  So perhaps I'm just failing to see your point.  Ultimately nobody used the dossier's claims against him during the campaign.


It actually original came from 2015 from an internal document of the Hillary Clinton campaign that a guy name Pete Brodnitz to Hillary Clinton’s consultant team. That a polling data was saying that with the information that got out that she was colluding with Russians with the Uranium deal, it would damaged her reputation for presidency. So she as a strategy logged it on her opponent Trump that he’s an agent of Putin as a distraction.

John Possesta came up with the conspiracy theory in 2015. We know this from leaked documents. Actual evidence. This is why I didn’t believe this conspiracy theory to begin with. And was calling nonsense for months.

And still to this day they are not allowed to look at the DNC servers. How is this possible that they were allowed to investigate Trump but not allowed to investigate Hillary’s servers. This is corruption and they are avoiding talking about it.

And no they illegally spied on Trump, and mislead the fisa courts, it’s not just a simple opposition research.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> Imagine if Trump is holding onto evidence that would exonerate him and indict Clinton this whole time, and he's just waiting for the 2020 election to show it.


The idea of Trump withholding that type of evidence is hilarious.  He would've Tweeted it out the moment he got his hands on it.



SG854 said:


> It actually original came from 2015 from  an internal document of the Hillary Clinton campaign that a guy name Pete Brodnitz to Hillary Clinton’s consultant team.


Perfect example of a conspiracy theory easily debunked through the use of Occam's Razor.  If she had gone to these lengths to get the Steele dossier, she would've been touting it all over TV as hard evidence.  I'm not sure it was even mentioned _once_ during her campaign or the debates, unless it was brought up by Trump or a reporter first.

Again, just use your damn brain.  How is Hillary an evil genius while simultaneously ultra-incompetent?  The truth, as usual, is somewhere in-between.  She's neither of those things.  She's a _slightly_ left-leaning corporate bureaucrat who's bad at campaigning.  Still would've made a better president than Trump, because the status quo would easily be preferable to putting toddlers in detention centers where they get sexually assaulted.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, after Trump's Republican primary challengers paid for it first.  It's called opposition research, and it happens in literally every election.  So perhaps I'm just failing to see your point.  Ultimately nobody used the dossier's claims against him during the campaign.




https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-conservatives-didnt-fund-the-steele-dossier


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The idea of Trump withholding that type of evidence is hilarious.  He would've Tweeted it out the moment he got his hands on it.
> 
> 
> Perfect example of a conspiracy theory easily debunked through the use of Occam's Razor.  If she had gone to these lengths to get the Steele dossier, she would've been touting it all over TV as hard evidence.  I'm not sure it was even mentioned _once_ during her campaign or the debates, unless it was brought up by Trump or a reporter first.
> ...


There is actual evidence of this. Are you really telling me to use my brain when I’ve been calling the Russia investigation bullshit for months and you’ve been denying it.

Here is John Podesta email were the Russia Trump conspiracy theory started from WikiLeaks.



> ”Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria.”



https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/25651


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...e-conservatives-didnt-fund-the-steele-dossier


Lol, this says conservatives funded Fusion GPS, which was the entire basis for the dossier.



			
				WashingtonExaminer said:
			
		

> The Washington Free Beacon did not bankroll the Steele dossier, a highly dubious work of opposition research alleging the Russians have compromising personal and financial information on Donald Trump.
> 
> Rather, the conservative newsroom hired the same research firm that later created it, Fusion GPS, in 2016 to investigate Trump and other Republican candidates during the GOP primaries.
> 
> After Trump had won the nomination, the Free Beacon dropped the project. It was at that point that Democratic operatives swooped in, bringing along with them former British spy Christopher Steele.



In other words, they didn't directly fund _Christopher Steele_, but they did fund the entire overarching basis for his dossier.  Using double-speak doesn't change that fact.  The NYTimes got their facts correct on this story as well:



			
				NYTimes said:
			
		

> WASHINGTON — The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative website funded by a major Republican donor, first hired the research firm that months later produced for Democrats the salacious dossier describing ties between Donald J. Trump and the Russian government, the website said on Friday.
> 
> The Free Beacon, funded in large part by the New York hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, hired the firm, Fusion GPS, in 2015 to unearth damaging information about several Republican presidential candidates, including Mr. Trump. But The Free Beacon told the firm to stop doing research on Mr. Trump in May 2016, as Mr. Trump was clinching the Republican nomination.
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee had begun paying Fusion GPS in April for research that eventually became the basis for the dossier.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/27/us/politics/trump-dossier-paul-singer.html


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Lol, this says conservatives funded Fusion GPS, which was the entire basis for the dossier.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So your admitting Hillary and the DNC paid for the salacious dossier and is involved in this. To spread false information about Trump. According to the article you linked. Which doesn’t look good for her. So she was doing corrupt things, to unfairly win the election.

Conservative hired for opposition research which isn’t a crime. And it mentions he stopped research. Hillary paid for a salacious document, which was used to mislead the fisa courts knowing the information is false. That is a crime.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So your admitting Hillary and the DNC paid for the salacious dossier and is involved in this. To spread false information about Trump. According to the article you linked. Which doesn’t look good for her. So she was doing corrupt things, to unfairly win the election.


Fucking Christ, *READ.*  Yes, Hillary paid for the dossier.  _After_ *TRUMP'S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY CHALLENGERS* paid for a large part of it.

If her goal was to spread the information, she did a damn poor job of it, because _again_, she never brought it up once during the campaign or debates.

Regardless, paying for opposition research is not illegal, for _either_ side, as long as it's disclosed and handled properly.  You're grasping at straws.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Fucking Christ, *READ.*  Yes, Hillary paid for the dossier.  _After_ *TRUMP'S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY CHALLENGERS* paid for a large part of it.
> 
> If her goal was to spread the information, she did a damn poor job of it, because _again_, she never brought it up once during the campaign or debates.
> 
> Regardless, paying for opposition research is not illegal, for _either_ side, as long as it's disclosed and handled properly.  You're grasping at straws.


Why would she if it’s salacious and unverified.

Christopher Steele used Yahoo news, no academic uses yahoo news as a source, and his source links it to himself. “Hi I’m Christopher Steele I have sources of collusion, my source comes from me Christopher Steele” Is basically why the dossier is. Read it for yourself, its online, it’s a big joke.

They used it to lie about evidence of collusion to illegally spy on Trump, that was the intention of the salacious document in the first place. That is illegal.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Why would she if it’s salacious and unverified.


It is salacious, and that's likely the reason she didn't use it.  Not entirely unverified though, as much as I'm sure you'd love that to be the case.



SG854 said:


> They used it to lie about evidence of collusion to illegally spy on Trump


Are you a broken record?  The Steele dossier had *nothing* to do with the Mueller investigation.  The straws...they're slipping away...


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 25, 2019)

Reminder: this is Barr's summary, not the actual report. Barr is the same man that fixed the Iran-Contra scandal. I'm going to wait until the report comes out.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

IncredulousP said:


> Reminder: this is Barr's summary, not the actual report. Barr is the same man that fixed the Iran-Contra scandal. I'm going to wait until the report comes out.


Yep, and the thing is that it was ultimately Barr's decision whether to pursue charges or not.  We have to see the full report in order to grasp just how much evidence Barr is letting slide here.


----------



## bodefuceta (Mar 25, 2019)

Shouldn't americans be happy their president isn't a criminal?
What's wrong here, why all the hate? I'd expect none but the mentally ill to prefer someone he doesn't like out of trouble over being governed by a criminal.


----------



## Viri (Mar 25, 2019)

Spoiler


----------



## Costello (Mar 25, 2019)

bodefuceta said:


> Shouldn't americans be happy their president isn't a criminal?
> What's wrong here, why all the hate? I'd expect none but the mentally ill to prefer someone he doesn't like out of trouble over being governed by a criminal.


the answer is as simple as this - these people hoped that he would be found guilty and then impeached, and america would get itself a new president.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 25, 2019)

Costello said:


> the answer is as simple as this - these people hoped that he would be found guilty and then impeached, and america would get itself a new president.


They want Pence, obviously.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It is salacious, and that's likely the reason she didn't use it.  Not entirely unverified though, as much as I'm sure you'd love that to be the case.
> 
> 
> Are you a broken record?  The Steele dossier had *nothing* to do with the Mueller investigation.  The straws...they're slipping away...


They lied and mislead fisa courts, and not disclosed important information, to illegally spy on trump. Without the dossier they wouldn’t have been able to get a fisa warrant, a surveillance warrant. It’s in the fisa memo. And somehow you think that’s okay because it didn’t lead to the muller investigation. I’m sure sure wouldn’t give Trump that much lineancy if it was him that was doing that.

Are you ignoring the John Podesta email I linked. That this conspiracy theory originated from them. Or are you okay with political people your voting for misleading the American people.

First you gave a link that a Republican hired the same firm Hillary hired. It’s doesn't say that the Russia story came from the Republicans. All it says is that they hired and then stopped opposition research. Hillary and Podesta were the one that came up with the conspiracy theory. Or are you excusing that and saying that’s ok for them to make up conspiracy theory lies to win the election. That does not sound like a fair fight at all. You debate policies not ruin your opponent with conspiracies.


----------



## IncredulousP (Mar 25, 2019)

Snugglevixen said:


> They want Pence, obviously.


Pence doesn't post asinine insults, nuclear threats, or state secrets on social media.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 25, 2019)

Every thirty days or so, there's either a new Trump scandal, or there's new evidence for a Trump scandal. The report summary doesn't really change much.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They lied and mislead fisa courts, and not disclosed important information, to illegally spy on trump.


Who the fuck is 'they?'  What are you talking about?  You're trying to find connections that simply aren't there.



SG854 said:


> Are you ignoring the John Podesta email I linked.


I ignore debunked conspiracy theories, yes.



SG854 said:


> First you gave a link that a Republican hired the same firm Hillary hired. It’s doesn't say that the Russia story came from the Republicans.


The 'Russia story' came from Trump's own behavior raising suspicions within his own administration.  At some point he didn't look innocent even to his own people.  It's as simple as that.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Every thirty days or so, there's either a new Trump scandal, or there's new evidence for a Trump scandal. The report summary doesn't really change much.


This one was a big one. People are not going to trust media after this and any bad criticisms or scandals of Trump. They damaged their reputation. And see Trump as a victim of lies. Trump is going to use this against them.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> Who the fuck is 'they?'  What are you talking about?  You're trying to find connections that simply aren't there.
> 
> 
> I ignore debunked conspiracy theories, yes.
> ...


I’m tired talking about this. Your hopeless. No wonder you believed in Trump Russia conspiracy. I gave you Wikileaks links. Im done.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This one was a big one. People are not going to trust media after this and any bad criticisms or scandals of Trump.


The media, Hillary, Democrats, or Mueller, which is it?  You're just flailing in the wind trying to find somebody to "blame" for a victimless, by-the-books investigation.  I know Trump is doing the same, he's already mentioned "revenge investigations," but even _you_ have to see how that would immediately make him lose any good faith he's garnered from the result of the Mueller investigation.  Just about the worst possible move he could make now.



SG854 said:


> I’m tired talking about this. Your hopeless. No wonder you believed in Trump Russia conspiracy. I gave you Wikileaks links. Im done.


The Roger Stone case reveals Wikileaks as an entity acting in close coordination with Russian intelligence.  They have not been a credible source for quite a while, just another tabloid rag full of disinformation for conspiracy theorists to latch on to.  You probably already knew that, though.


----------



## Captain_N (Mar 25, 2019)

Cylent1 said:


> over 2 years and not 1 lick of evidence supporting the russian collusion!
> Don't you think just 1 of these rabbid dems would have brought out the worse accusations from the beginning, and if not somewhere toward the end?
> They have nothing and they know it!



They went on a witch hunt looking for a crime, any crime to try to get trump. That is not how the system is suppose to work. Your only supposed to look for the evidence at hand. Not go and create other crimes. Imagine if they did they actually went after Hilary. Just having a private server that was used to communicate classified government information is crime enough. Nobody can deny that. She was asked to hand over the server and she then "wiped it with a cloth".
If the Donald is guilty of Russian election meddling then i want him impeached and tried.
This whole investigation just shows how corrupt the government is. And this is the same government that liberals want to control your health care, give you a UBI and control more of your life.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Captain_N said:


> They went on a witch hunt looking for a crime, any crime to try to get trump.


Precisely the opposite of how this investigation operated.  It was limited in scope to only Russian collusion and obstruction of justice.  Anything they found outside the scope of these was handed off to other federal or state offices.

If there were no crimes committed, there will be no crimes found.  No harm, no foul.


----------



## Fugelmir (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Precisely the opposite of how this investigation operated.  It was limited in scope to only Russian collusion and obstruction of justice.  Anything they found outside the scope of these was handed off to other federal or state offices.
> 
> If there were no crimes committed, there will be no crimes found.  No harm, no foul.




No, the investigation was caused by a dossier that was fabricated.  The parties who disseminated it committed a crime.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> No, the investigation was caused by a dossier that was fabricated.


I've already had to argue this point with SG854.  No, the Steele dossier is not connected in any way to the Mueller investigation.  Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein (a Trump appointee) started the Mueller investigation after Comey was fired, amid concerns that he was fired in order to obstruct justice.

Edit: remember when Trump brought Russians to the oval office to celebrate Comey's firing?  I sure do.



Spoiler












It's no wonder that even Republicans were suspicious of Trump at that point.


----------



## Fugelmir (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I've already had to argue this point with SG854.  No, the Steele dossier is not connected in any way to the Mueller investigation..




It was, and remains a key piece of evidence here. Not that it's very important at this point.  The DOJ actions were very partisan in following such a ridiculous document and it guaranteed him amnesty from the very beginning.  

It was the basis of the whole argument and it failed spectacularly as a result.  Anyone who thought he'd be brought down by this should be ashamed.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> It was, and remains a key piece of evidence here.


You're full of shit rofl.  Show me *ONE* instance where the Mueller investigation has cited the Steele dossier.  You can't.  It won't be anywhere in the full report, either.



Fugelmir said:


> The DOJ actions were very partisan


Okaaay bud.  The entirely-Republican, entirely Trump-appointed DOJ's actions were very partisan.  Gotcha.


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 25, 2019)

Fun to see people completely dismiss all of this as conspiracy theories with conspiracy theories.


----------



## DarthDub (Mar 25, 2019)

I doubt the public is gonna see the report.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

DarthDub said:


> I doubt the public is gonna see the report.


You might be right, but that would reek of a cover-up if the DOJ says that's gonna be the case.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> This one was a big one. People are not going to trust media after this and any bad criticisms or scandals of Trump. They damaged their reputation. And see Trump as a victim of lies. Trump is going to use this against them.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


There were/are very real concerns that needed to be investigated.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Fun to see people completely dismiss all of this as conspiracy theories with conspiracy theories.


I hope your not referring to me. I’m talking about fisa warrants not Muller report but xzi keeps misrepresenting my arguments. Muller is blameless in all this. It’s was a massive intel breakdown where they didn’t fact check properly.

And Hillary wouldn’t shut up about Russia Russia. It matches the Wikileaks article I linked that would they would put Putin and Trump as buddy buddy. So how is the wiki leaks article wrong? These are emails that have been leaked. She did pushed this without any shred of evidence to begin with with. Looks at all the dislikes to see people’s opinons.



The guy uses the memo and the fisa application to compare the two and see if the memo is legit. And most of it checks out. Or are you going to believe the lying party and mainstream Media that keep pushing this conspiracy theory without a single shred evidence pretending they had so much evidence. The reporting on this was horrible. Polosi stopped wanting impeachment, she knew there was no evidence they were using it as a political weapon.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fisa-warrant-application-supports-nunes-memo

FISA Application

https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-justice-department-releases-carter-page-fisa-application


Dossier played a prominent role in the FISA application. It was used to wire tap.



> _The "dossier" compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain derogatory information on Donald Trump's ties to Russia._





> But Senate Judiciary Committee staff, who reviewed the FISA application separately from the House, concluded that the dossier allegations made up the "bulk" of the application. Even a Washington Post article Sunday purporting to debunk the Nunes memo in light of the FISA application conceded that the dossier played "a prominent role" in the FISA application.
> 
> Finally, the Nunes memo's assertion, noted below, that former FBI number-two Andrew McCabe agreed that "no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information," was not challenged by Democrats when the Nunes memo was made public.



Deputy Director McCabe testified saying that no surveillance warrant would have happened without the dossier.



> _Deputy Director McCabe testified before the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier information._



--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Lacius said:


> There were/are very real concerns that needed to be investigated.


They kept pushing that they had so much evidence without actual evidence. They lied. I don’t think you know the actual scope of the actual damage they caused with this red scare they were pushing. Watch what people are saying and you’ll see. And they are trying to damage control like this is nothing. Which I knew was going to happen. It was so predictable.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The media, Hillary, Democrats, or Mueller, which is it?  You're just flailing in the wind trying to find somebody to "blame" for a victimless, by-the-books investigation.  I know Trump is doing the same, he's already mentioned "revenge investigations," but even _you_ have to see how that would immediately make him lose any good faith he's garnered from the result of the Mueller investigation.  Just about the worst possible move he could make now.
> 
> 
> The Roger Stone case reveals Wikileaks as an entity acting in close coordination with Russian intelligence.  They have not been a credible source for quite a while, just another tabloid rag full of disinformation for conspiracy theorists to latch on to.  You probably already knew that, though.


Roger Stone probably won’t serve anytime in jail now that now that Muller Report says no collusion.

And people are trying to say what about all the indictments!

Some of them are ridiculous. Or nothing to do with collusion.

Manafort got indictments for 10 yr old money laundering charges. Which he was working for podesta when it happened. Nothing to do with Trump.

The Russian nationals are having a field day with their indictments. Somehow Facebook ads and Internet memes over threw our government.


----------



## CORE (Mar 25, 2019)

The whole sickening thing about all this nonsense is if Trump can be Smeared what chance has anyone else got , anyone that disagrees or God Forbid oops did I say God , Mention anything considered a Conspiracy A CIA Creation I might add , it is quickly Censored or smeared if something is not true why sensor it , To Control The Narrative.

All the F***ing Lies it is sickening Even Bush did not get as much attention why? Because Donald Trump aint part of the Rape and Pillage Club.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

So more classified documents have been uncovered from Hillary’s private server which could indict her discussing classified foreign policy with world leaders.* They only got 5,000 of the 33,000 emails she tried to destroy. Why destroy if you got nothing to hide Clinton?

She was using 100% off the record   private back channels speaking with the Israeli prime minister.*

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...ls-in-hillary-clintons-unsecure-email-system/


It contradicts what she said under oath in 2015 that she relinquished all classified documents to the State Department.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.da...ails-classified-private-server-judicial-watch

So it seems they are more involved in the Trump-Russia collusion story.



> Blumenthal noted that “Cody [Shearer] and I are following up.” Blumenthal and Shearer were both implicated in the creation of the Obama administration’s anti-Trump Russia “collusion” counterintelligence operation by providing “reports” relating to Trump-Russia collusion to the U.S. Government.



*Isn’t this what she was accusing Trump of doing. This is self projection.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 25, 2019)

I mean, the summary basically says "Russia definitely influenced the election through super shady ways" and "we couldn't find direct evidence of a trump collusion, but there was some shady stuff so we'll let someone else deal with that ball of wax". 

Hopefully we'll get access to the full report but...does it not bother you the amount of intentional misinformation? Many of the things you heard about hillary or trump could have been false? The silly ones like the pedo-ring in a pizza place are obviously fake, but it's worth investigating it all. Avoid the common news stuff like fox or cnn and look at the AP or al jazeera. I suggest the main thing you take from this report is you go over *ever* *single* *fact* you think you know about both of those folks and look into them. For instance, did you know Trump's dad was the silent partner in many of "trump's" businesses? that first "1 million loan" was closer to 10 million? many of trump's solo ventures failed, requiring millions in loans from siblings and father? Because I certainly didn't. Bit surprised since I never heard otherwise, not really. I wonder if it'll come up this election cycle.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I mean, the summary basically says "Russia definitely influenced the election through super shady ways" and "we couldn't find direct evidence of a trump collusion, but there was some shady stuff so we'll let someone else deal with that ball of wax".
> 
> Hopefully we'll get access to the full report but...does it not bother you the amount of intentional misinformation? Many of the things you heard about hillary or trump could have been false? The silly ones like the pedo-ring in a pizza place are obviously fake, but it's worth investigating it all. Avoid the common news stuff like fox or cnn and look at the AP or al jazeera. I suggest the main thing you take from this report is you go over *ever* *single* *fact* you think you know about both of those folks and look into them. For instance, did you know Trump's dad was the silent partner in many of "trump's" businesses? that first "1 million loan" was closer to 10 million? many of trump's solo ventures failed, requiring millions in loans from siblings and father? Because I certainly didn't. Bit surprised since I never heard otherwise, not really. I wonder if it'll come up this election cycle.


Foreign government influence elections all the time. Israel is a bigger threat then Russia. One of the indictments against Russian nationals was for a bunch of facebook stuff and online memes affecting U.S. elections, or the 13 russian trolls I like to call it.

So apparently there is a lawsuit right now against the Clinton Campain and the Obama DOJ/FBI to cover up documents in their Russia collusion scandal.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.br...or-fbi-documents-on-anti-trump-collusion/amp/

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...l-watch-sues-russia-collusion-fisa-documents/

Judicial watch are the ones recently uncovered new emails about Hillary Clinton from her server.


https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...vers-classified-info-on-clinton-email-server/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> I mean, the summary basically says "Russia definitely influenced the election through super shady ways" and "we couldn't find direct evidence of a trump collusion, but there was some shady stuff so we'll let someone else deal with that ball of wax".
> 
> Hopefully we'll get access to the full report but...does it not bother you the amount of intentional misinformation? Many of the things you heard about hillary or trump could have been false? The silly ones like the pedo-ring in a pizza place are obviously fake, but it's worth investigating it all. Avoid the common news stuff like fox or cnn and look at the AP or al jazeera. I suggest the main thing you take from this report is you go over *ever* *single* *fact* you think you know about both of those folks and look into them. For instance, did you know Trump's dad was the silent partner in many of "trump's" businesses? that first "1 million loan" was closer to 10 million? many of trump's solo ventures failed, requiring millions in loans from siblings and father? Because I certainly didn't. Bit surprised since I never heard otherwise, not really. I wonder if it'll come up this election cycle.


I have never actual done research on the pedo ring pizza gate scandal so I dont know much about it.

There is mystery around the Seth Rich murder.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Foreign government influence elections all the time. Israel is a bigger threat then Russia. One of the indictments against Russian nationals was for a bunch of facebook stuff and online memes affecting U.S. elections, or the 13 russian trolls I like to call it.
> 
> So apparently there is a lawsuit right now against the Clinton Campain and the Obama DOJ/FBI to cover up documents in their Russia collusion scandal.
> 
> ...


PLEASE please do not use judicial watch as any source of information. It's conspiracy clap-trap and is the kind of thing that intentionally misleads people. Just some randos making stuff up. Can safely ignore anything they say

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/


----------



## Viri (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Foreign government influence elections all the time. Israel is a bigger threat then Russia


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/texas-israel-oath-boycott/
Shit like this shouldn't exist.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> PLEASE please do not use judicial watch as any source of information. It's conspiracy clap-trap and is the kind of thing that intentionally misleads people. Just some randos making stuff up. Can safely ignore anything they say
> 
> https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/


Alright then I’ll dismiss what they say.

This is there supposed lawsuit.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-v.-DOJ-James-Baker-comms-complaint-00177.pdf


----------



## Megadriver94 (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Alright then I’ll dismiss what they say.
> 
> This is there supposed lawsuit.
> 
> http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-con...-v.-DOJ-James-Baker-comms-complaint-00177.pdf


I wouldn't be so sure to dismiss what they say as just "clap-trap". Mod Osaka35 either does not want to hear from the other side, is afraid of judicialwatch, Daily Caller, and Ben Shapiro's positions, or both. As I said before over a year ago, I am not much of a Republican; its the other side of the same coin. Same can be said for Weedz.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Megadriver94 said:


> I wouldn't be so sure to dismiss what they say as just "clap-trap". Mod Osaka35 either does not want to hear from the other side, is afraid of judicialwatch, Daily Caller, and Ben Shapiro's positions, or both. As I said before over a year ago, I am not much of a Republican; its the other side of the same coin. Same can be said for Weedz.


I can’t verify if the lawsuit is legit or if they are making it up.

I do pay attention to crazy conspiracy sites, I like Alex Jones because he’s entertaining, I don’t believe what he says. But I don’t want to fall into crazy conspiracy theory territory, so I’m skeptical.


----------



## Viri (Mar 25, 2019)

Spoiler



You can’t trust our media https://t.co/7YGUyxfkuQ— KEEM 🍿 (@KEEMSTAR) March 25, 2019



Today was a turning point, the walls are cracking, this is the beginning of the end of Donald Trump.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 25, 2019)

Megadriver94 said:


> I wouldn't be so sure to dismiss what they say as just "clap-trap". Mod Osaka35 either does not want to hear from the other side, is afraid of judicialwatch, Daily Caller, and Ben Shapiro's positions, or both. As I said before over a year ago, I am not much of a Republican; its the other side of the same coin. Same can be said for Weedz.


Aligning conservative viewpoints with those who make stuff up is a poor decision. And those republicans in power do a huge disservice to conservatives as well. Legit conservative viewpoints are a rarity nowadays, and it isn't helped when yellow-journalism is supported by, and conflated with, legit conservatives. Can only move forward when reality is examined from many angles. If we can't agree on reality, then we can't even start discussing conservative/liberal/etc viewpoints on the reality.

I'm pretty liberal, but I don't see "conservative" as a bad word. But I will call out made-up stuff and bad logic, regardless of who spouts it.


----------



## Megadriver94 (Mar 25, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I mean, the summary basically says "Russia definitely influenced the election through super shady ways" and "we couldn't find direct evidence of a trump collusion, but there was some shady stuff so we'll let someone else deal with that ball of wax".
> 
> Hopefully we'll get access to the full report but...does it not bother you the amount of intentional misinformation? Many of the things you heard about hillary or trump could have been false? The silly ones like the pedo-ring in a pizza place are obviously fake, but it's worth investigating it all. Avoid the common news stuff like fox or cnn and look at the AP or al jazeera. I suggest the main thing you take from this report is you go over *ever* *single* *fact* you think you know about both of those folks and look into them. For instance, did you know Trump's dad was the silent partner in many of "trump's" businesses? that first "1 million loan" was closer to 10 million? many of trump's solo ventures failed, requiring millions in loans from siblings and father? Because I certainly didn't. Bit surprised since I never heard otherwise, not really. I wonder if it'll come up this election cycle.





SG854 said:


> Foreign government influence elections all the time. Israel is a bigger threat then Russia. One of the indictments against Russian nationals was for a bunch of facebook stuff and online memes affecting U.S. elections, or the 13 russian trolls I like to call it.
> 
> So apparently there is a lawsuit right now against the Clinton Campain and the Obama DOJ/FBI to cover up documents in their Russia collusion scandal.
> 
> ...


The thing about the "Russian Bot" scandal is that its OVERBLOWN by not only NBC news, but also CNN, Buzzfeed ""News"" Huffingtong Post and Vox as well as Stephen "lost his touch" Colbert and Bill "Democrat half-wit" Maher." Putin is by NO means a just and fair leader; In fact Mikhail Gorbechav said about Putin that while Russia is in need of a strong leeader, it does not need someone along like, say, a Stalin. Boths sides are played against the middle.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Viri said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the few truly good things said by Daniel "ratfink" Keem.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

Megadriver94 said:


> The thing about the "Russian Bot" scandal is that its OVERBLOWN by not only NBC news, but also CNN, Buzzfeed ""News"" Huffingtong Post and Vox as well as Stephen "lost his touch" Colbert and Bill "Democrat half-wit" Maher." Putin is by NO means a just and fair leader; In fact Mikhail Gorbechav said about Putin that while Russia is in need of a strong leeader, it does not need someone along like, say, a Stalin. Boths sides are played against the middle.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Ya, the Russia bot scandal was overblown by media. A lot of the indictments were overblown. Rachael Maddow was saying a Russian flew to where Trump had a rally. Collusion! She was going crazy.

CNN was dumpster diving into Russian trash to find evidence of collusion, lol. They were going crazy into the conspiracy theory.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 25, 2019)

Megadriver94 said:


> The thing about the "Russian Bot" scandal is that its OVERBLOWN by not only NBC news, but also CNN, Buzzfeed ""News"" Huffingtong Post and Vox as well as Stephen "lost his touch" Colbert and Bill "Democrat half-wit" Maher." Putin is by NO means a just and fair leader; In fact Mikhail Gorbechav said about Putin that while Russia is in need of a strong leeader, it does not need someone along like, say, a Stalin. Boths sides are played against the middle.
> 
> --------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
> 
> ...


Do you feel the summary makes it overblown as well? Or the federal agencies who agree? Or anyone else who has investigated the claims? How about Vitaly Bespalov and the others who have reported 1st-hand accounts? Seems to be a literal industry over there. companies hiring people to create content 24-7. It's actually quite a bit bigger deal than I personally thought it was.


----------



## Viri (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Ya, the Russia bot scandal was overblown by media.


I was called a "Russian bot" on Twitter all the time, because I had a blast trolling people, until I got banned, 3 times.



Spoiler



я не русский бот


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Do you feel the summary makes it overblown as well? Or the federal agencies who agree? Or anyone else who has investigated the claims? How about Vitaly Bespalov and the others who have reported 1st-hand accounts? Seems to be a literal industry over there. companies hiring people to create content 24-7. It's actually quite a bit bigger deal than I personally thought it was.


*Hillary Clinton Blames the Russians, Facebook, and Fake News for Her Loss*

I find her videos to be well researched.


----------



## osaka35 (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> *Hillary Clinton Blames the Russians, Facebook, and Fake News for Her Loss*
> 
> I find her videos to be well researched.




I mean...that video is a bit outdated, as the mueller report does establish an influence. Just not directly supported by trump. We'll have to wait for the full report to be public before a video like that has too much merit, since a lot of it is "we don't know, so we can't act on it". 

As far as hillary blaming russians and whatnot, that's her personal take on things. She won the popular vote by one a long shot, so really she should probably be blaming gerrymandering and First-Past-The-Post voting more than russia.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 25, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> I mean...that video is a bit outdated, as the mueller report does establish an influence. Just not directly supported by trump. We'll have to wait for the full report to be public before a video like that has too much merit, since a lot of it is "we don't know, so we can't act on it".
> 
> As far as hillary blaming russians and whatnot, that's her personal take on things. She won the popular vote by one a long shot, so really she should probably be blaming gerrymandering and First-Past-The-Post voting more than russia.


She screwed herself over blaming Russia.


Russians did likely intervene, there is a study by a political scientist Don Levin saying that partison electoral interventions only increase voter share by about 3%.

Trump had 306/43% of electoral votes

Hillary had 232/57% of votes

Trump won by 14% more.

If you factor in the 3% influence by foreign governments, Trump would have still won by 11% more.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-us-intervention-foreign-elections-20161213-story.html?outputType=amp



Viri said:


> I was called a "Russian bot" on Twitter all the time, because I had a blast trolling people, until I got banned, 3 times.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Glen Greenwald is having a field day with this on Twitter. He’s like told you so!

So Muller announced that he wasn’t indicting or persecuting anymore people. He also said after 20 months of aggressive investigation he found no evidence of Trump or his Aids conspired with Russians, nor any Americans. Not a single one, so it lets all Americans off the hook as well. I don’t know why people think there is more to the report that they don’t already know now.


----------



## Viri (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Trump had 306/43% of electoral votes
> 
> Hillary had 232/57% of votes
> 
> ...


You forgot the part where Russia mind controlled Hillary, to never even set one foot into Wisconsin during her entire campaign trail.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Russians did likely intervene, there is a study by a political scientist Don Levin saying that partison electoral interventions only increase voter share by about 3%.


80,000 votes in two states made the difference.  That's definitely less than 3% of all voters.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> 80,000 votes in two states made the difference.  That's definitely less than 3% of all voters.




Three states, but yep that's right.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-states/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.00efb3528eec

https://www.weeklystandard.com/john...n-pennsylvania-wisconsin-and-michigan-updated


----------



## Viri (Mar 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> 80,000 votes in two states made the difference.  That's definitely less than 3% of all voters.


Yuh, if only the Russians didn't brainwash Hillary to completely ignore Wisconsin! She might've won the state! Damn Ruskies! That gosh darn Gary Johnson, he was a Russian puppet!


----------



## Xzi (Mar 25, 2019)

Viri said:


> Yuh, if only the Russians didn't brainwash Hillary to completely ignore Wisconsin! She might've won the state! Damn Ruskies! That gosh darn Gary Johnson, he was a Russian puppet!


More like if only the Russians hadn't targeted those three states most aggressively with disinformation/outrage campaigns.  Now they're the states suffering most under Trump in terms of jobs too lol.  California is creating most of the new jobs under Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They kept pushing that they had so much evidence without actual evidence. They lied. I don’t think you know the actual scope of the actual damage they caused with this red scare they were pushing. Watch what people are saying and you’ll see. And they are trying to damage control like this is nothing. Which I knew was going to happen. It was so predictable.



The Mueller probe led to dozens of indictments for federal crimes and at least eight guilty pleas or convictions related to the Trump campaign and the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
Arguably, there's evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of Donald Trump.
_They_ didn't lie.

Edit: Trump and Republicans are doing victory laps right now, but if everything the Mueller probe accomplished had been kept secret until last weekend's big reveal, they'd be doing damage control instead. Let's also remember that this is far from the end of Trump's legal troubles. From a good piece on the topic:


> There’s the hush-money scandal. And the investigation into Trump’s inaugural committee. And the investigation into Trump Foundation. And the Emoluments Clause court case(s). And the civil suit filed by one of the women who accused the president of sexual misconduct. And allegations of bank/insurance fraud.
> 
> Of course, there are also congressional lines of inquiry on everything from tax returns, security clearances, presidential abuses, and scrutiny of Russian interference in U.S. elections.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The Mueller probe led to dozens of indictments for federal crimes and at least eight guilty pleas or convictions related to the Trump campaign and the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
> Arguably, there's evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of Donald Trump.
> _They_ didn't lie.


No, most of what you said Mueller debunked already. There was no obstruction in the investigation.

The Russian Governement interference all they got was Russian trolls posting muscular pictures of Bernie Sanders.







Russian Nationals were indicted for interferening but to claim anti Bernie, pro Bernie, pro gun, anti gun, pro blm, anti blm memes over threw our government......


----------



## Viri (Mar 26, 2019)

Spoiler







Check out those evil racist Trump supporters in NYC, burning down the city, and trashing it, to celebrate their Nazi overlord!




Lacius said:


> Let's also remember that this is far from the end of Trump's legal troubles





Spoiler


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The Mueller probe led to dozens of indictments for federal crimes and at least eight guilty pleas or convictions related to the Trump campaign and the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
> Arguably, there's evidence of obstruction of justice on the part of Donald Trump.
> _They_ didn't lie.
> 
> Edit: Trump and Republicans are doing victory laps right now, but if everything the Mueller probe accomplished had been kept secret until last weekend's big reveal, they'd be doing damage control instead. Let's also remember that this is far from the end of Trump's legal troubles. From a good piece on the topic:


You can get him on financial crimes and tax evasion just not till after he finishes his presidency, they were crimes committed before he became president. He literally has to stay president to avoid indictment.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> No, most of what you said Mueller debunked already. There was no obstruction in the investigation.


That's not what the report allegedly said. If the summary is to be believed, it explains how Trump might or might not have committed obstruction of justice. That's it.

Edit: Regardless of whether or not he's ever indicted for obstruction of justice (he likely won't be), articles of impeachment tend to include obstruction of justice.



SG854 said:


> You can get him on financial crimes and tax evasion just not till after he finishes his presidency, they were crimes committed before he became president. He literally has to stay president to avoid indictment.


That's possible, but there's also an argument to be made that a sitting president can in fact be indicted. Regardless, the statute of limitations for these crimes, particularly with regard to the bank fraud, is a really long time.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That's not what the report allegedly said. If the summary is to be believed, it explains how Trump might or might not have committed obstruction of justice. That's it.
> 
> Edit: Regardless of whether or not he's ever indicted for obstruction of justice (he likely won't be), articles of impeachment tend to include obstruction of justice.
> 
> ...


There are no indictments, no sealed indictments, no collusion, no obstruction, no recommendation of impeachment.

The appearance of obstruction your talking about, like with Comey, is not the same as proving it in a legal framework. You would have to prove intent and there was none of that. If there was obstruction Mueller would have said it, it was confirmed on Friday there was no obstruction. 

The summary says “the specials councils team lacked sufficient evidence to establish that president trump illegally obstructed justice”


----------



## Lacius (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> There are no indictments


No new indictments, you mean. There were plenty of indictments and convictions.



SG854 said:


> no obstruction


The Mueller report didn't reach that conclusion.



SG854 said:


> no recommendation of impeachment.


That wasn't within the scope of the Mueller report.



SG854 said:


> The appearance of obstruction your talking about, like with Comey, is not the same as proving it in a legal framework. You would have to prove intent and there was none of that.


You should read my post on that very topic early on in the thread, which is almost identical to what you said. However, I'm not just talking about the Comey firing, intent might be able to be demonstrated, we haven't seen the evidence in the Mueller report for or against obstruction yet, and the ability to demonstrate intent might not be as important as I previously stated. It's all debatable.



SG854 said:


> If there was obstruction Mueller would have said it, it was confirmed on Friday there was no obstruction.


You should reread the summary of the report, because that's not what it says.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The appearance of obstruction your talking about, like with Comey, is not the same as proving it in a legal framework. You would have to prove intent and there was none of that. If there was obstruction Mueller would have said it, it was confirmed on Friday there was no obstruction.


We haven't seen the Mueller report.  We've only seen AG Barr's summary, which included all of four quotes from the full report.  And ultimately it was Barr's decision whether or not to indict for obstruction, not Mueller's.  Now we just need to see the report to make sure Iran-Contra guy didn't let too many obvious offenses slide.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> No new indictments, you mean. There were plenty of indictments and convictions.
> 
> 
> The Mueller report didn't reach that conclusion.
> ...


It says it does not exonerate him of obstruction of justice, and I know people are going to focus hard on that one sentence thinking they are going to get much out of that.

2 years, 5 people sentenced, 1 person convicted at trial, 7 people plead guilty, 37 people and entities charged, 199 overall crimes count, none of which had to do with collusion. They didn’t even indict low level Trump aids. They were all seperate crimes done by individuals. It’s like my dad committing a crime and I follow the law but I get punished for my dads crimes.

Thinking you can impeach Trump on this is a pipe dream.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It says it does not exonerate him of obstruction of justice, and I know people are going to focus hard on that one sentence thinking they are going to get much out of that.


They'll focus on it until we can see the full report and the evidence behind that conclusion.  Simple as that.  Keeping it secret will make people more and more suspicious of a cover-up.  Naturally, Bitch McTurtle blocked a vote on a resolution in the Senate to release the full report today anyway.  After it passed Congress 420-0, nonetheless.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If there was obstruction Mueller would have said it ...



You know what? That's a damned good point. But I'm not sure it's correct. I think Mueller does not see himself or his office as a legal 'fact-finder', i.e. playing in the role judge/jury. Just evidence collector. The investigation found no evidence of collusion. Wrt: obstruction, the investigation found actions were taken that could be considered as legitimate actions within the President's authority, or not. It's up to the "fact finder" to decide, not the investigators. And as the "prosecutor" for the government, the DOJ has discretion over whether there's a case or not. The DOJ exercised that discretion in 2016 to decide there was no case against Hillary Clinton. Boy, you should've heard the Democrats' demands for the full report and all evidence over that one! (/sarc)

I'm absolutely in favor of the full report being released, btw, to the extent it can be. But there is going to be classified information and PII (personally identifying information) in there that by law must be redacted, and if Congressional democrats try to gin up their base by claiming the smoking gun is contained in such redactions .... well that's actually exactly what I expect them to do, but it's 100% weasel-level, and they know it.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It says it does not exonerate him of obstruction of justice, and I know people are going to focus hard on that one sentence thinking they are going to get much out of that.


It says a little more than that once sentence. Mueller and his team made no conclusions one way or another with regard to obstruction of justice, and that's just the summary of the actual report. The report itself is apparently quite extensive.



SG854 said:


> 2 years, 5 people sentenced, 1 person convicted at trial, 7 people plead guilty, 37 people and entities charged, 199 overall crimes count


That's quite impressive.



SG854 said:


> none of which had to do with collusion.


You act as though that disconnects them from the 2016 election meddling by the Russians, with or without collusion. It's all still quite scandalous, and as I said earlier, if all of these indictments had come out last weekend instead of progressively over time, Republicans would be scrambling to control the damage.



SG854 said:


> They didn’t even indict low level Trump aids. They were all seperate crimes done by individuals. It’s like my dad committing a crime and I follow the law but I get punished for my dads crimes.


I'll let David Frum explain the problem with your analogy using a better analogy:
1. A truck of TVs is hijacked.2. Your son meets with the hijackers.3. Your campaign manager shares route information with them.4. You are recorded on video saying, "I love truck hijacking."5. The TVs are in your house.Happy No Collusion Day.— David Frum (@davidfrum) March 24, 2019




SG854 said:


> Thinking you can impeach Trump on this is a pipe dream.


You should see my post above about all of the other legal issues Trump has to deal with.

Do I think Trump will be successfully impeached? No. Is it plausible? Definitely.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> They'll focus on it until we can see the full report and the evidence behind that conclusion.  Simple as that.  Keeping it secret will make people more and more suspicious of a cover-up.  Naturally, Bitch McTurtle blocked a vote on a resolution in the Senate to release the full report today anyway.  After it passed Congress 420-0, nonetheless.


Fine release it. But Barr’s summary is accurate. If it wasn’t Mueller would’ve came out and corrected him.



Hanafuda said:


> You know what? That's a damned good point. But I'm not sure it's correct. I think Mueller does not see himself or his office as a legal 'fact-finder', i.e. playing in the role judge/jury. Just evidence collector. The investigation found no evidence of collusion. Wrt: obstruction, the investigation found actions were taken that could be considered as legitimate actions within the President's authority, or not. It's up to the "fact finder" to decide, not the investigators. And as the "prosecutor" for the government, the DOJ has discretion over whether there's a case or not.
> 
> I'm absolutely in favor of the full report being released, btw, to the extent it can be. But there is going to be classified information and PII (personally identifying information) in there that by law must be redacted, and if Congressional democrats try to gin up their base by claiming the smoking gun is contained in such redactions .... well that's actually exactly what I expect them to do, but it's 100% weasel-level, and they know it.


Remember that fake news story on mainstream media and Mueller came out and corrected it. He does correct false information.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Hanafuda said:


> You know what? That's a damned good point. But I'm not sure it's correct. I think Mueller does not see himself or his office as a legal 'fact-finder', i.e. playing in the role judge/jury. Just evidence collector. The investigation found no evidence of collusion. Wrt: obstruction, the investigation found actions were taken that could be considered as legitimate actions within the President's authority, or not. It's up to the "fact finder" to decide, not the investigators. And as the "prosecutor" for the government, the DOJ has discretion over whether there's a case or not. The DOJ exercised that discretion in 2016 to decide there was no case against Hillary Clinton. Boy, you should've heard the Democrats' demands for the full report and all evidence over that one! (/sarc)
> 
> I'm absolutely in favor of the full report being released, btw, to the extent it can be. But there is going to be classified information and PII (personally identifying information) in there that by law must be redacted, and if Congressional democrats try to gin up their base by claiming the smoking gun is contained in such redactions .... well that's actually exactly what I expect them to do, but it's 100% weasel-level, and they know it.


*Mueller disputes accuracy of BuzzFeed report on Trump, Cohen*


----------



## Lacius (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Fine release it. But Barr’s summary is accurate. If it wasn’t Mueller would’ve came out and corrected him.


Respectfully, the problem has less to do with the accuracy of Barr's summary and more to do with your misunderstanding of Barr's summary. It is still very possible that Trump obstructed justice, but he probably won't be indicted for it. We also want to see the full Mueller report in order to see what evidence for or against obstruction of justice Barr is using to make his decisions.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Fine release it. But Barr’s summary is accurate. If it wasn’t Mueller would’ve came out and corrected him.


Even those who fully trust Barr should want verification.  Also, Mueller will undoubtedly be called on to testify a number of times.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Respectfully, the problem has less to do with the accuracy of Barr's summary and more to do with your misunderstanding of Barr's summary. It is still very possible that Trump obstructed justice, but he probably won't be indicted for it. We also want to see the full Mueller report in order to see what evidence for or against obstruction of justice Barr is using to make his decisions.




Barr and his Department have the discretion to make that determination though. It doesn't matter if you and every Democrat alive disagree with him on the particulars (and I'm sure you will, regardless). 

Why don't you just admit the Democrats want the full report so they can cherry pick and spin excerpted bits and pieces on Rachel Maddow and etc. for the next 1 1/2 yrs leading up to the election, like the sneaky little squirrels you are? Everyone knows that's why. The Republicans know. The Democrats know. The Independents know. You don't need to pretend.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It says a little more than that once sentence. Mueller and his team made no conclusions one way or another with regard to obstruction of justice, and that's just the summary of the actual report. The report itself is apparently quite extensive.
> 
> 
> That's quite impressive.
> ...





Lacius said:


> Respectfully, the problem has less to do with the accuracy of Barr's summary and more to do with your misunderstanding of Barr's summary. It is still very possible that Trump obstructed justice, but he probably won't be indicted for it. We also want to see the full Mueller report in order to see what evidence for or against obstruction of justice Barr is using to make his decisions.


This is the same when I was calling nonsense on Russia Collusion for months and people were using mental gymnastics saying look at all these facts! I don’t know what else to tell you. You’re dead set they’ll find something and you’ll be disappointed. 

@Hanafuda It’s pretty pointless trying to explain. We knew this would happen. Them desperate to find anything. They really want our President to be a traitor to the people, think about that.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Why don't you just admit the Democrats want the full report so they can cherry pick and spin excerpted bits and pieces on Rachel Maddow and etc. for the next 1 1/2 yrs leading up to the election, like the sneaky little squirrels you are?


"QQ the Democrats are making the president look bad by _pointing out his actions!_"


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "QQ the Democrats are making the president look bad by _pointing out his actions!_"



You're making my point for me.

Good night.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You're making my point for me.
> 
> Good night.


If you say so.  If the evidence is as innocuous as Barr claims it is, there should be no issue.  There's only an issue if we've got something like 50+ examples of obstruction in the full report and he simply dismissed it all out of favoritism.


----------



## Costello (Mar 26, 2019)

I think most people do want to see Hillary in jail, leftists included, if she is proven guilty. Guilty people no matter which side deserve jail time.

That being said, I'm always amazed at how quick people are to dismiss all of Trump's wrongdoings. Justice Barr, named by Trump himself, concludes from the undisclosed Mueller report, that Trump hasn't colluded with russia (thankfully), and suddenly this makes Trump white as snow? What about everything else? Did that just go away? Trump is under investigation in half a dozen different criminal cases, plus a bunch of civil cases. And this is only his legal troubles. What about the massive swamp of lobbies he surrounds himself with, the oil industry which is the happiest they've ever been, the climate change denying which is dumb as a rock (not believing in science? how is science a belief? science is *evidence*), the illiterate tweets, his lack of respect for women, his racism, his overall stupidity, not being able to place countries on a map, Tim Apple, the thousands of lies, the national emergency at the southern border, John McCain insults, massive tax break for the rich when he campaigned for the working class, ... I could go on for so long it would take an entire day. So this is the kind of people you like to identify yourself with I guess? Ignorance, greed, lies, machism, racism, manipulations, such great values you carry around when you support Trump.

Yep, he's getting away with all this. He said it himself, he loves the poorly educated. He could get away with anything.



And I already know what reply I'm going to get for this. "BUT THE ECONOMY!?" or "ANYWAY CLINTON WAS WORSE". Hopeless.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

Costello said:


> I think most people do want to see Hillary in jail, leftists included, if she is proven guilty.


Sure, but proven guilty for _what exactly_?  Republicans have already investigated her a ridiculous number of times and found nothing.  If the Trump administration investigates Hillary, that's the president investigating his political opponents (former, in this case).  Which is a whole new territory for the US, pretty standard fare for dictatorships and Banana Republics though.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 26, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Barr and his Department have the discretion to make that determination though. It doesn't matter if you and every Democrat alive disagree with him on the particulars (and I'm sure you will, regardless).
> 
> Why don't you just admit the Democrats want the full report so they can cherry pick and spin excerpted bits and pieces on Rachel Maddow and etc. for the next 1 1/2 yrs leading up to the election, like the sneaky little squirrels you are? Everyone knows that's why. The Republicans know. The Democrats know. The Independents know. You don't need to pretend.


Most people want the full report, so the rest of your post is moot. Personally, politics have nothing to do with it.



SG854 said:


> This is the same when I was calling nonsense on Russia Collusion for months and people were using mental gymnastics saying look at all these facts! I don’t know what else to tell you. You’re dead set they’ll find something and you’ll be disappointed.
> 
> @Hanafuda It’s pretty pointless trying to explain. We knew this would happen. Them desperate to find anything. They really want our President to be a traitor to the people, think about that.


Again, there were very real questions about Russian collusion, and Russia's meddling in the 2016 election is a very real issue, collusion or not.


----------



## Costello (Mar 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sure, but proven guilty for _what exactly_?  Republicans have already investigated her a ridiculous number of times and found nothing.  If the Trump administration investigates Hillary, that's the president investigating his political opponents (former, in this case).  Which is a whole new territory for the US, pretty standard fare for dictatorships and Banana Republics though.


I dont know man she is being accused of so many things. At some point you lose the benefit of the doubt. What tickles me is the Clinton Foundation -- these so-called "charity" foundations generally serve as siphons for other things, it's so obvious, and in plain sight. Trump is doing just the same. Both of them deserve to be jailed for that, if they are proven guilty.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

Costello said:


> I dont know man she is being accused of so many things. At some point you lose the benefit of the doubt.


I mean, do you?  Or does it make you think maybe a few too many conspiracy-minded individuals are overly obsessed with her?  I haven't seen evidence of her committing the type of charity fraud that Trump has, and the Clintons certainly haven't been forced into shutting their charity down as Trump has.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

I just want to say there were 3 investigations.

Two investigations by the senate house intelligence committee, and the Mueller report. 3 separate investigations and no collusion.

On top of much evidence against Trunp being an agent of Putin. Like deploying troops to Russian boarders, pulling out of the INF treaty, putting sanctions on German-Russian pipelines, trying to over throw Venezuela. All things Putin doesn’t want.

All evidence points to no collusion. I don’t know how people are able to avoid all this evidence and still want to think they’ll find something. It’s almost pathetic.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I just want to say there were 3 investigations.
> 
> Two investigations by the senate house intelligence committee, and the Mueller report. 3 separate investigations and no collusion.


Yeah...and?  The other 9+ ongoing criminal investigations involving Trump aren't about collusion.  Financial crimes, nepotism, emoluments, charities fraud, that type of thing.  It's as others have said: being cleared of collusion doesn't really excuse everything else he's done in plain sight, now does it?


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Costello said:


> I think most people do want to see Hillary in jail, leftists included, if she is proven guilty. Guilty people no matter which side deserve jail time.
> 
> That being said, I'm always amazed at how quick people are to dismiss all of Trump's wrongdoings. Justice Barr, named by Trump himself, concludes from the undisclosed Mueller report, that Trump hasn't colluded with russia (thankfully), and suddenly this makes Trump white as snow? What about everything else? Did that just go away? Trump is under investigation in half a dozen different criminal cases, plus a bunch of civil cases. And this is only his legal troubles. What about the massive swamp of lobbies he surrounds himself with, the oil industry which is the happiest they've ever been, the climate change denying which is dumb as a rock (not believing in science? how is science a belief? science is *evidence*), the illiterate tweets, his lack of respect for women, his racism, his overall stupidity, not being able to place countries on a map, Tim Apple, the thousands of lies, the national emergency at the southern border, John McCain insults, massive tax break for the rich when he campaigned for the working class, ... I could go on for so long it would take an entire day. So this is the kind of people you like to identify yourself with I guess? Ignorance, greed, lies, machism, racism, manipulations, such great values you carry around when you support Trump.
> 
> ...



There is a lot to break down. But i’ll only focus on the tax one right now. There are different opinions on how we should handle taxes, and people don’t see it as just tax cuts for the rich. I like Thomas Sowells articles on this. He’s an economist that was mentored under Milton Friedman (a very famous Nobel prize winning economist). It’s a very complicated topic and tax cuts doesn’t always mean evil bad thing, there’s a lot  of nuance. Same with the other Trump issues you brought up.

So tax rates and tax revenue aren’t the same thing. There are times when we collected more taxe revenue when we had lower tax rates. Essentially the rich avoid paying taxes when it’s too high. And we need to find a balance of not too low and not too high tax rates. We have many examples in history where lower tax rates generate more tax revenue.

Thomas Sowells article Tax Cuts for the Rich and Trickle Down Theory.

https://www.tsowell.com/images/Hoover Proof.pdf

John Stossel’s video



Trumps tax cuts does not only benifit the rich. David Pakman is a leftist guy and he also benefit from Trumps tax cuts and keeps more of his money. And it seems he’s in a dilema, he feels he should be taxed more. Some people opinions think opposite of his. It’s not a black and white issue.


----------



## Costello (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> There is a lot to break down. But i’ll only focus on the tax one right now. There are different opinions on how we should handle taxes, and people don’t see it as just tax cuts for the rich. I like Thomas Sowells articles on this. He’s an economist that was mentored under Milton Friedman (a very famous Nobel prize winning economist). It’s a very complicated topic and tax cuts doesn’t always mean evil bad thing, there’s a lot  of nuance. Same with the other Trump issues you brought up.
> 
> So tax rates and tax revenue aren’t the same thing. There are times when we collected more taxe revenue when we had lower tax rates. Essentially the rich avoid paying taxes when it’s too high. And we need to find a balance of not too low and not too high tax rates. We have many examples in history where lower tax rates generate more tax revenue.
> 
> ...



Please do go on and reply to the other points after this one, always good to see two sides of a medal.

Regarding your taxes I wonder how you will react when this happens to you too https://uproxx.com/viral/trump-voters-gop-tax-bill/3/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-tax-cut-twitter/ https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/23/tax-refunds-republicans-1182286
Bend over too buddy, you're going to get fucked just like the rest of americans  unless you're in the 1% of course

I do agree with you that nothing's ever really fully black and white. But god damn it, can't you see the black on that guy? so to speak. His supporters are as guilty as him. You may have voted for the guy out of spite because you thought Hillary was worse, and nobody will blame you for it, but actively supporting the guy and defending him shows what kind of person you are. Like I said, promoting Trump is promoting his values. You stand for Trump, then this is what you stand for: racism, illiteracy, lobbying, lies, sexism, anti-science, division, white supremacism, etc. You have to live up with that.


----------



## SG854 (Mar 26, 2019)

Costello said:


> Please do go on and reply to the other points after this one, always good to see two sides of a medal.
> 
> Regarding your taxes I wonder how you will react when this happens to you too https://uproxx.com/viral/trump-voters-gop-tax-bill/3/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-tax-cut-twitter/ https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/23/tax-refunds-republicans-1182286
> Bend over too buddy, you're going to get fucked just like the rest of americans  unless you're in the 1% of course
> ...


That’s because people pay less in taxes. Taxes are decreasing for the vast majority of tax payers. Turbo Tax shows data on this. When theres cuts to taxes there’s cuts to how much they withhold from your pay. They are withholding less but their take home pay increases. Instead of seeing tax savings in higher refunds. They see tax savings in higher paychecks. And you can control how much withholdings you get. If you want a bigger refund then reduce the number of allowances you have.

Large tax refunds are bad because you take home less every pay check. You could be struggling to pay bills month to month but get a large refund.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Costello said:


> Please do go on and reply to the other points after this one, always good to see two sides of a medal.
> 
> Regarding your taxes I wonder how you will react when this happens to you too https://uproxx.com/viral/trump-voters-gop-tax-bill/3/ https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-tax-cut-twitter/ https://www.politico.com/story/2019/02/23/tax-refunds-republicans-1182286
> Bend over too buddy, you're going to get fucked just like the rest of americans  unless you're in the 1% of course
> ...


The white supremacy and sexism arguments people just brush aside. We heared it so much, and even people who are not any of these things being accused of it, we’ve become numb whenever we hear it. Trump is not the KKK or whatever. He recently did prison reform which helped many blacks. We have a big media problem pushing lies in America and I think this Russia narrative kind of shows the world how bad it is.

And in America if you accuse people of because being racist because they support him, we’ll you’ll get a lot of people ignoring you because they aren’t actually racist. They just support Trump because he promised bringing jobs back to people that lost them, or other things. And the economy is doing ok right now. What people want to hear and debate is policies, not your racist, he’s racist, blah blah, because majorty of America is hardly racist.

There are some things you can support for trump and somethings you can be against. Like foreign policy or tariffs. I’ve criticized Trumps tariffs. You can see him as socially terrible person but like how the economy is doing. It isn’t as simple as he supports Trump therfore he supports racism. There’s a lot of nuance on why they support him.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The white supremacy and sexism arguments people just brush aside.


ROFL.  You mean people on the right-wing, yeah.  And that's how the far-right becomes more 'mainstream' to the rest of the political right.


----------



## Likeinside (Mar 26, 2019)

Interesting video


----------



## KingVamp (Mar 26, 2019)

Doing some good things, doesn't wash away all the shadiness that is around Trump and his group.


----------



## CORE (Mar 29, 2019)

A Bear! Obviously Russian Collusion but tastes so good


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 29, 2019)

UPDATE:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6bb4f3ceb155

- No pre-release submission to the White House for 'executive privilege' review, i.e. President Trump has waived executive privilege. 

- As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the full report will be released, but must first by law be redacted for classified/nat'l security matters, and for PII (personally identifying information). Every Democrat in Congress knows that review and those redacts must be done, but they're publicly demanding immediate release of the full report anyway, and they'll cry foul when it is released. On another site I browse, an almost exclusively liberal one, where I learned of this wapo article and Barr's new statement on the report, people are already grumbling that the redacts will be hiding all the real dirt. Of course.

- Barr disputes the characterization of his letter of last weekend as a "summary." He says it was only a statement of 'the bottom line,' i.e. the principal conclusions, and that he does not think it would right for his office to provide a condensed version summary of the report.


----------



## Glyptofane (Mar 29, 2019)

It's getting sad and pathetic on both sides really. The left is pushing psychopaths while Trump won't even use this chance to double down on his original platform and continues to worship people who hate him while ignoring his base. We need to get Yang in there on the double!


----------



## SG854 (Mar 29, 2019)

@Costello To continue from my last post. Turbo Tax has a W-4 Withholding Calculator which you can adust for a Bigger Tax Refund or Bigger Pay Check.
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/calculators/w4/



So I just came across this article because I like to find dissenting opinions.

Snake Oil Tax Cuts
https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/jfrankel/TaxCutSnakeOilSept16-08.pdf

And heres an opposing opinon to the above article.
https://www.academia.edu/3465304/Supply-Side_Economics_Voodoo_Economics_or_Lasting_Contribution


Whose right? I don't know. I would have to look into this more to see who's correct and who's not. I don't pick any sides and just go to what the research says. And I genuienly want to find out what's best and what's the truth. But there's so many liars out there it's hard to seperate truth from lies. There's alot of bad and/or fake reaserch out there. Last year researchers exposed gender studies to be not be legit research. They published purposley made fake research to Academic Journals. Which shows that they come up with a hypothesis but don't test it, so it's junk science. And that you have to be careful what's out there, even in supposed Scientifc Academic Journals. And be critical.



If you wanna know why people don't see people take Trump's "Grab em' by the Pu**y" comment seriously anymore. It's because he held a surprise media event after they were accusing him of being sexist. He got Bill Clintons accusers and said, me paraphrasing, "I'm not proud of what I said, but those are just words, look at Bill Clinton and Hillary defending Bill, he actually has women of accusing him of inapropriate behaviors, he's the one that should appologize, not me, I never did anything bad physically to women, actions speak louder than words. That shut them up right away. He owned what would destroyed his Presidency. And this is Trump's strength that the Democratic party doesn't do. They hardly launch a counter attack like that. They just appoligize all the time and scramble to donate to the nearest Women's charity when accused of the same thing. Which lets their oppnents win. He doesn't. And he hardly ever starts it either. He waits for his opponents to attack him, then he launches a counter attack, which gives him a little more leeway to act like how he does and act like that on Twitter, no matter how many times media says it's inapropriate behavior for a President.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Barr disputes the characterization of his letter of last weekend as a "summary."


He's right, four sentences from a 300+ page document can hardly be considered a summary.  Just a lazy copy-paste job.

Seems Barr's hot take on the report isn't very convincing to most...54% still believe there's evidence of collusion in the full report.  Even Fox's judge Napolitano is convinced of that.  Personally I think there's not enough evidence to go after a sitting president for collusion, but there's plenty in the way of evidence for obstruction of justice, and Barr is too much of a sycophant to indict for that.  I'm betting there's also plenty in the way of financial crimes to be discovered, but that's outside the scope of the Mueller investigation and in other hands now.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He's right, four sentences from a 300+ page document can hardly be considered a summary.  Just a lazy copy-paste job.
> 
> Seems Barr's hot take on the report isn't very convincing to most...*54% still believe there's evidence of collusion* in the full report.  Even Fox's judge Napolitano is convinced of that.  Personally I think there's not enough evidence to go after a sitting president for collusion, but there's plenty in the way of evidence for obstruction of justice, and Barr is too much of a sycophant to indict for that.  I'm betting there's also plenty in the way of financial crimes to be discovered, but that's outside the scope of the Mueller investigation and in other hands now.




Whose poll is that, Xzi?


----------



## Glyptofane (Mar 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He's right, four sentences from a 300+ page document can hardly be considered a summary.  Just a lazy copy-paste job.
> 
> Seems Barr's hot take on the report isn't very convincing to most...54% still believe there's evidence of collusion in the report.  Even Fox's judge Napolitano is convinced of that.  Personally I think there's not enough evidence to go after a sitting president for collusion, but there's plenty in the way of evidence for obstruction of justice, and Barr is too much of a sycophant to indict for that.  I'm betting there's also plenty in the way of financial crimes to be discovered, but that's outside the scope of the Mueller investigation and in other hands now.


Are we just trying to prove he is a nasty, worthless creep now. I hate cheaters, that Bush Senior article released. Fuck my shit I hate everything.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 29, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Whose poll is that, Xzi?


I'm sure you'll poo-poo it, but it's a CNN poll.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/27/politics/cnn-poll-mueller-reaction-exoneration/index.html

And actually I was wrong, it's 56%.  CNN is traditionally left-wing, of course, but they haven't done a better job of covering the Barr letter than anyone else.  So I'd consider that opinion poll to be a mostly organic representation of the public's rejection of the media's attempt to dismiss the Barr letter as "sufficient."  75% - 84% want the full report made public, depending on which poll you look at, and only 33% believe that the Mueller report clears Trump of _any_ wrongdoing.  In other words, only Trump's most hardcore base.


----------



## Fugelmir (Mar 29, 2019)

Costello said:


> I think most people do want to see Hillary in jail, leftists included, if she is proven guilty. Guilty people no matter which side deserve jail time.
> 
> That being said, I'm always amazed at how quick people are to dismiss all of Trump's wrongdoings. Justice Barr, named by Trump himself, concludes from the undisclosed Mueller report, that Trump hasn't colluded with russia (thankfully), and suddenly this makes Trump white as snow? What about everything else? Did that just go away? Trump is under investigation in half a dozen different criminal cases, plus a bunch of civil cases. And this is only his legal troubles. What about the massive swamp of lobbies he surrounds himself with, the oil industry which is the happiest they've ever been, the climate change denying which is dumb as a rock (not believing in science? how is science a belief? science is *evidence*), the illiterate tweets, his lack of respect for women, his racism, his overall stupidity, not being able to place countries on a map, Tim Apple, the thousands of lies, the national emergency at the southern border, John McCain insults, massive tax break for the rich when he campaigned for the working class, ... I could go on for so long it would take an entire day. So this is the kind of people you like to identify yourself with I guess? Ignorance, greed, lies, machism, racism, manipulations, such great values you carry around when you support Trump.
> 
> ...




Whenever you have a lot of money, and popularity, people come after you.  Especially in real estate.  Nobody called the guy a saint.   He was the preferable candidate.  He's a nationalist -- he puts his nation's values above others.  The nationalist stance is key for United States because it is the best country in the world.  I expect politicians to lie.  It comes with the territory.

Be wary of calling Trump a racist.  I'm an Algerian Jew myself and Trump is the first president who has protected the Jews against the Palestinian controlled United Nations.  This contrasts Obama who is detested and feared for his anti-Israel position on the settlements.

Just to be clear: not an ideal president, but the best I've ever seen.  More to the point: if you're super interested in changing politics, why post on a gaming forum?

If you want to show me how much of a horrible racist he is, you're gonna have to make him look worse than his predecessors.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 31, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm sure you'll poo-poo it, but it's a CNN poll.




Not at all. Except to the extent I would "poo-poo" all media polling. Here's a poll CBS News did.

Polls about what people _think_ don't really mean much, do they?


----------



## Xzi (Mar 31, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Not at all. Except to the extent I would "poo-poo" all media polling. Here's a poll CBS News did.
> 
> Polls about what people _think_ don't really mean much, do they?


Particularly not when the polling methodology is flawed, as was the case with that CBS poll.  I mean, the bar is pretty damn low by now, but I have to believe that most people are at least aware that Mueller is a Republican.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 31, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Particularly not when *the polling methodology is flawed, as was the case with that CBS poll*.  I mean, the bar is pretty damn low by now, but I have to believe that most people are at least aware that Mueller is a Republican.




The exact same outfit (SSRS of Glen Mills, PA) conducted the CBS News poll that conducted the CNN poll you cited before. The CBS News poll was done by landline and cellphone interviews of over 1000 persons. The CNN poll was done by online interviews (how do they even _pretend_ that's reliable?) of only 701 persons. Both are horseshit propaganda.


----------



## Xzi (Mar 31, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> The exact same outfit (SSRS of Glen Mills, PA) conducted the CBS News poll that conducted the CNN poll you cited before. The CBS News poll was done by landline and cellphone interviews of over 1000 persons. The CNN poll was done by online interviews (how do they even _pretend_ that's reliable?) of only 701 persons. Both are horseshit propaganda.


True, ultimately it means nothing as soon as the full Mueller report is released, just as that CBS poll meant nothing once the Barr letter was released.  Still, there's little doubt that the 70% - 80% figure for people wanting to see the full report is accurate, a four page memo was never going to be sufficient enough to satisfy anybody's curiosity after two years of this investigation.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 1, 2019)

First for the report: can they just release it so everybody can just move on? if people want closure they can read it. If you believe the guy then there should be no reason for concern.


Outside of that all im going to say is that eventually a Left leaning liberal will assume office again. Do not be surprised if the next guy strongmans his way through policies and act shocked since there is now way too many bad precedents set. A lot of people are celebrating getting what they want without regarding the consequences.
The next emergency can now be over climate change or college loans. This will be amusing to watch when the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 1, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> First for the report: can they just release it so everybody can just move on? if people want closure they can read it. If you believe the guy then there should be no reason for concern.
> 
> 
> Outside of that all im going to say is that eventually a Left leaning liberal will assume office again. Do not be surprised if the next guy strongmans his way through policies and act shocked since there is now way too many bad precedents set. A lot of people are celebrating getting what they want without regarding the consequences.
> The next emergency can now be over climate change or college loans. This will be amusing to watch when the shoe is on the other foot.



It could be a year, it could be twenty before it gets released.  It contains classified information that would expose the inner workings of intelligence agencies.  In the United States it's also illegal to divulge grand jury testimony as well.  It was a democrat decision to criminalize disseminating this information and it actually makes sense.


----------



## erikas (Apr 1, 2019)

So in summary, there's literally nothing on trump. The whole "this does not exonerate him" BS needs to go. It's innocent until proven guilty has he has not been proven guilty by a 2 year long investigation. How long are you people going to peddle this conspiracy theory?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 1, 2019)

erikas said:


> So in summary, there's literally nothing on trump. The whole "this does not exonerate him" BS needs to go.


In summary, we haven't seen the full report.  "Does not exonerate him" is just a single quote from the report, so it isn't 'going' anywhere.



Fugelmir said:


> It could be a year, it could be twenty before it gets released. It contains classified information that would expose the inner workings of intelligence agencies.


Wrong, the report was not written exclusively for the eyes of William Barr.  Congress is meant to see it in full, and the general public is meant to see it with _some_ redactions.  Keeping in mind of course that there is an ongoing grand jury investigation originally started by Mueller, the precise purpose of which is unknown, so redactions for the sake of secrecy in that regard would be understandable.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/27/mueller-grand-jury-1238861


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 1, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> It could be a year, it could be twenty before it gets released.  It contains classified information that would expose the inner workings of intelligence agencies.  In the United States it's also illegal to divulge grand jury testimony as well.  It was a democrat decision to criminalize disseminating this information and it actually makes sense.


you know Trump himself has said he is ok with being released. so... *shrugs*


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2019)

Well i'm not voting for anyone this comming up election. No Trump or anyone else. I don't realy like any of the canidates. Right now the right is pretty happy with Trump, so they don't really have any one else on the right. For the left Bernie is probably the best canidate they have against Trump. The other left-wing canidates don't have as much support as Bernie.


Open Boarders is a big concern right now and is one reason people are choosing their canidate. Bernie Sanders said no to open boarders because that's a Koch Brothers proposal. It's a right wing scheme for cheap labor and supress wages of native born workers. But now there is a flip between both parties where the right wants closed boarders and many on the left want open boarders. And some accusing racism for wanting a boarder. There are some on the left that want's closed boarders but better boarder enforcment where people aren't mistreated. This is not a clear right or left issue.

https://thehill.com/business-a-lobb...orders-and-how-it-can-boost-the-world-economy
https://www.vox.com/2015/7/29/9048401/bernie-sanders-open-borders





WD_GASTER2 said:


> First for the report: can they just release it so everybody can just move on? if people want closure they can read it. If you believe the guy then there should be no reason for concern.
> 
> 
> Outside of that all im going to say is that eventually a Left leaning liberal will assume office again. Do not be surprised if the next guy strongmans his way through policies and act shocked since there is now way too many bad precedents set. A lot of people are celebrating getting what they want without regarding the consequences.
> The next emergency can now be over climate change or college loans. This will be amusing to watch when the shoe is on the other foot.


Trump is limited in terms of power. He's been wanting a boarder wall since he became president and still can't get what he wants. They can set emergencies for global warming and college loans but they are not garunteed to get it. For me, I actually support a green new deal that makes sense.

State of Emergencies isn't anything new, if this is what you meant with "bad precidents set", and Democrats have worn the shoes and declared many state of emergencies in the past. Many are still in effect today. Trump has issued 3-4, the first one being against serious human rights abusers. Compared to Obama, he has issued 12 emergencies. Bush 13.

https://psmag.com/news/the-united-states-states-of-emergencies


----------



## Viri (Apr 2, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> First for the report: can they just release it so everybody can just move on? if people want closure they can read it. If you believe the guy then there should be no reason for concern.


Apparently they're going to release it sometime this month, and they're busy redacting names from the report. If you've ever read a declassified report, expect a lot of this...



Spoiler


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2019)

Viri said:


> Apparently they're going to release it sometime this month, and they're busy redacting names from the report. If you've ever read a declassified report, expect a lot of this...
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler


It's against the amendment to release any personal information that has nothing to do with crimes, even if Trump said release it in full. So they are going to redact alot of that. Of course they can twist this as being a cover up, when in reality it's not.


And there are people saying that Mueller is a Republican as if that is something significant. I remember when Republicans critiisized Muellers team because there was too many Democrats. 13 of the 17 are registered Democrats. 9 made politcal donations to Democrats totaling to around $57,000. So Republicans critisize Muellers team for being biased because there is too many Democrats on it when the investigation was going on. Democrats now critisize Mueller being biased because he's a Republican.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-facts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.69ab69ab9b18


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 2, 2019)

Sorry but with all due respect, the idea that the democrats want "open boarders" befuddles me to no end. I have not heard any of the current democratic candidates say that. All of whats been called for has been a more human treatment of people. We have not had open boarder calls under any liberal president that i recall either. The only time I hear people saying that the "libs want open boarders" is through some overpaid pundit on fox news.

Also yes I believe a "wall" on the boarder and calling it as an emergency is absurd. If they really wanted to make it more difficult you assign more resources (ice, boarder patrol etc etc) instead a wall where im sure folks can easily bypass is a silly solution but one that seems to make a statement with his base.

Also real talk: I am still waiting for Mexico to pay for it as it was claimed.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And there are people saying that Mueller is a Republican as if that is something significant.


He was the head of the investigation.  Perhaps even more significant is that Mueller was appointed by a Republican that was appointed by Trump.  That's why flailing wildly and trying to find somebody to "blame" for this investigation wouldn't play well for him.  Kind of a Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man type situation.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> Sorry but with all due respect, the idea that the democrats want "open boarders" befuddles me to no end. I have not heard any of the current democratic candidates say that. All of whats been called for has been a more human treatment of people. We have not had open boarder calls under any liberal president that i recall either. The only time I hear people saying that the "libs want open boarders" is through some overpaid pundit on fox news.
> 
> Also yes I believe a "wall" on the boarder and calling it as an emergency is absurd. If they really wanted to make it more difficult you assign more resources (ice, boarder patrol etc etc) instead a wall where im sure folks can easily bypass is a silly solution but one that seems to make a statement with his base.
> 
> Also real talk: I am still waiting for Mexico to pay for it as it was claimed.


I didn't say democratic canidates. Canidates are not the only Democrats. Left includes voters that are not canidates. And i've seen people on the left calling for open boarders. A wall isn't the only thing. More resources to maintain boarders in addition to the wall is what the right was promoting.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I didn't say democratic canidates. Canidates are not the only Democrats. Left includes voters that are not canidates.
> A wall isn't the only thing. More resources to maintain boarders in addition to the wall is what the right was promoting.


Democrats offered funding to maintain and secure the border as it is.  The only reason Trump declared an emergency was specifically to get wall funding.  Which is another way of admitting failure to fulfill his promise that Mexico would pay for it.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He was the head of the investigation.  Perhaps even more significant is that Mueller was appointed by a Republican that was appointed by Trump.  That's why flailing wildly and trying to find somebody to "blame" for this investigation wouldn't play well for him.  Kind of a Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man type situation.


That Spider-Man meme is funny.


If you want to believe their is someting nefarious going on. You would also have to address the evidence against collusion like Trump going against Russia with his policies. Which shows that he is not a puppet of Putin. There is no quid pro quo. As Noam Chomsky the God Father of the left has said Trump colluding with Russia is a joke.




Unsealing Grand Jury documents can contain information that can put us at risk to hostle foreign nations. We are taking about High level governement officials, foreign policy documents being open, interactions with groups that are not out ally's, potential hostile foreign powers. Risking National Security to what is the most dangerous country to U.S. interests which would be Russia. Which that information needs to be redacted. I don't think risking National Security is a smart move just to score points against Trump into the 2020 election. That would be more reckless from the Democratic Party then anything Trump has ever done.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Unsealing Grand Jury documents can contain information that can put us at risk to hostle foreign nations. We are taking about High level governement officials, foreign policy documents being open, interactions with groups that are not out ally's, potential hostile foreign powers. Risking National Security to what is the most dangerous country to U.S. interests which would be Russia. Which that information needs to be redacted. I don't think risking National Security is a smart move just to score points against Trump into the 2020 election. That would be more reckless from the Democratic Party then anything Trump has ever done.


Nobody's suggesting giving the public information on the ongoing grand jury investigation, but TBH I doubt that's included in the Mueller report anyway.  It specifically focuses on collusion and obstruction, and the evidence therein.  I'm fully aware that information on unindicted individuals has to be redacted for the general public, but Congress has a right to the full, unredacted report.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 2, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nobody's suggesting giving the public information on the ongoing grand jury investigation, but *TBH I doubt that's included in the Mueller report anyway*.  It specifically focuses on collusion and obstruction, and the evidence therein.  I'm fully aware that information on unindicted individuals has to be redacted for the general public, but Congress has a right to the full, unredacted report.



There's over 500 witness testimonies in the report.  Why would you say something like this? It's  not just grand jury testimonies, but ongoing investigations in general that can't be disclosed for integrity purposes.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 2, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> There's over 500 witness testimonies in the report.  Why would you say something like this? It's  not just grand jury testimonies, but ongoing investigations in general that can't be disclosed for integrity purposes.


There's only one ongoing grand jury investigation left behind by Mueller, and it was created because of evidence they found outside the scope of collusion/obstruction.  The exact details nobody knows, only that it's an organization being targeted by the grand jury.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 4, 2019)

So there is dangerous Cuban Missle Crisis type tension levels right now between the U.S. and Russia over Venezuela. Which no one is talking about because they keep on pushing the stupid Trump Russia Collusion story. And these crazy Alex Jones flat earth type conspiracy theroist don't wanna stop. They just keep going on and on and on. Seriously this has done so much damage that Trump can't even make peace with the Russians anymore becuase thats evidence of Collusion! 


https://thehill.com/policy/internat...n-the-united-states-and-russia-over-venezuela




There is a Nato build up on Russia's boarder. United States is arming Ukranian rebels who is fighting Russia. There is U.S. warships in the black sea. Trump has repeatedly told Germany to stop the oil deal with Russia and instead do buisness with the U.S. We are permantly occupying Syria. Trump is being hugely anti Russia. How can people be this stupid and continue to push the dumb Russia Narative. Seriously what the does Trump have to do to prove there is no Collusion, bomb Russia directly, bomb a country that has Nuclear weapons? What do these people want? It doesn't matter what evidence you give them. All they have is Trump Derangment Syndrome and its causing alot of damage. None of them have coherent rebuttle, they ignore evidence, and push more conspiracy theories and try to connect dots like a crazy conspiracy theorist would without proof. You're not suppose to do that. You're not suppose to have a hypothesis stated as fact and work backwards. Thats not how evidence works. Provide evidence first then believe. You're not suppose to believe before evidence. But of course they are not going to learn.




You know what will stop the Russia and U.S. tensions? Have Trump and Vladamir Putin sit down make a deal and try to de-escalate things. But we can't have that any more because of the morons pushing Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia. Trump shouldn't do that because that's evidence of collusion!


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Trump is being hugely anti Russia.


So has he re-implemented all those sanctions he lifted on Russian oligarchs?  No?  Sounds like he's not so anti-Russia, then...


----------



## SG854 (Apr 4, 2019)

Xzi said:


> So has he re-implemented all those sanctions he lifted on Russian oligarchs?  No?  Sounds like he's not so anti-Russia, then...


Jesus Christ


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Jesus Christ


Not that there's really evidence behind much else that you were saying, either.  I mean, how many times have Trump and Putin met in private with no other Americans present?  Two?  Three?  It's hard to see any "tensions" between the US and Russia as genuine when those two are always so buddy-buddy together IRL.  Trump publicly said he trusts Putin over American intelligence while standing next to him, for god's sake.

The kicker being that the Mueller report unequivocally declares that Russia _did_ indeed attack our 2016 election.  Has Trump pledged to do a single thing to attempt prevention of that in 2020?  Of course not, because it was in his favor, regardless of whether his administration had direct contacts with Russians or not.  So you can see how any 'tensions' now might feel like Trump loudly declaring, "I've locked and barricaded the front door!"  ...While omitting the fact that the back door is wide open.  Simply farcical theater.

Edit: On that note, some members of Mueller's team today said that they believe the report's findings are more damaging to Trump than Barr has indicated.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 4, 2019)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...in-ally/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.565561aa9d6b


Im just saying it was his own buddies that told him that he cannot ease up. LOL.
Also the current Kremlin is definitely not the same that we had to deal with post cold war. This one has a lot of Journalists jumping off of buildings and dissenters getting poisoned. Lets not act like they should be eased up on.
also to add they violated the INF treaty and they got a response in kind. Quite frankly any sane person knows that Nato would gain nothing from setting foot on Russia too. A lot of the build up has been done in response to a lot of shenanigans the kremlin have started in the last few years.
Also for clarity nobody on either side really wants escalation of conflict. Thats stupid.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 4, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Fine release it. But Barr’s summary is accurate. If it wasn’t Mueller would’ve came out and corrected him.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html


----------



## SG854 (Apr 4, 2019)

Lacius said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/us/politics/william-barr-mueller-report.html


Aye Yai Yai. It's the same thing they did for 2 years. He said she said. They don't provide direct sources. They don't say what exaclty what in the report Barr misses. Don't give quotes. Its not clear if the 19 lawyers and 40 FBI agents agree. Just, someone who works in government who knows people on Muellers team said this this and that. Just more bad news reporting from the Times.



Xzi said:


> Not that there's really evidence behind much else that you were saying, either.  I mean, how many times have Trump and Putin met in private with no other Americans present?  Two?  Three?  It's hard to see any "tensions" between the US and Russia as genuine when those two are always so buddy-buddy together IRL.  Trump publicly said he trusts Putin over American intelligence while standing next to him, for god's sake.
> 
> The kicker being that the Mueller report unequivocally declares that Russia _did_ indeed attack our 2016 election.  Has Trump pledged to do a single thing to attempt prevention of that in 2020?  Of course not, because it was in his favor, regardless of whether his administration had direct contacts with Russians or not.  So you can see how any 'tensions' now might feel like Trump loudly declaring, "I've locked and barricaded the front door!"  ...While omitting the fact that the back door is wide open.  Simply farcical theater.
> 
> Edit: On that note, some members of Mueller's team today said that they believe the report's findings are more damaging to Trump than Barr has indicated.


I provided sources to everything I said. How is that not evidence?


You are literally doing everything I exactly said. Trump can't even lift sanctions without people screaming Russia Collusion. Jesus man. Trump can't do anything positive and de-escalate problems for anyone because they'll foam out the mouth and hyperventilate calling COLLUSION!



The deal is that Deripaska ownership be dropped from 70% to 45% making him not the majority owner. They were delisting him. But sanctions are still on Deripaska, just not on the companies. The deal was to limit Kremlin influence, and for them to be more transparent. They didn't want sanctions on the companies because that would negatively affect the world economy. Whether or not that was good because Trumps team handled it clumsily, there were disagreements on that.



In April there was sanctions on the big aluminum giant Russle and prices of Aluminum skyrocketed in the global markets. Europe relies alot on Russian aluminum which the sanctions negatiively affects them, and they were facing plant closure and lost jobs. Because of this The European Union strongly supported lifting Russian sanctions. The lifting of sanctions is because of concerns of our European allies, not because Trump is colluding with Russia.



https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...wants-lift-sanctions-related-russian-oligarc/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...in-s-bid-to-lift-sanctions-on-deripaska-firms


----------



## Xzi (Apr 4, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Aye Yai Yai. It's the same thing they did for 2 years. He said she said.  They don't provide direct sources.


The fuck are you talking about?  Mueller's team never had a single leak in two years.  And the Mueller report has all their "sources" in it, otherwise known as evidence.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 5, 2019)

I think he's talking about the media conspiracies not the report itself.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> I think he's talking about the media conspiracies not the report itself.


I fail to see what the issue was with the media following along with the investigation's progress.  People close to Trump were indicted and jailed in that process, for god's sake.  And the expectation is what?  That the media simply won't cover it because of those individuals' proximity to the president?  If anything, that only makes it even _more_ newsworthy.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I fail to see what the issue was with the media following along with the investigation's progress.  People close to Trump were indicted and jailed in that process, for god's sake.  And the expectation is what?  That the media simply won't cover it because of those individuals' proximity to the president?  If anything, that only makes it even _more_ newsworthy.



The weird thing I find about this Trump derangement syndrome is that the exact same thing is happening in Canada, but we have a liberal in power.  The media let him off the hook for giving a convicted terrorist a 10 million dollar payout.

It's very interesting to see the double standard from both sides.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> The weird thing I find about this Trump derangement syndrome is that the exact same thing is happening in Canada, but we have a liberal in power.  The media let him off the hook for giving a convicted terrorist a 10 million dollar payout.
> 
> It's very interesting to see the double standard from both sides.


So now you've moved the goalposts all the way to the point where the definition of "Trump derangement syndrome" is literally just the media covering what Trump says and does?  I don't follow Canadian politics very closely, so I can't comment on that issue regardless of my skepticism of your claim.  Here in America though, people are tired of the "both sides" nonsense, and most people are fully aware that it's a bullshit argument meant to gaslight them.  Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders couldn't be more polar opposite.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I fail to see what the issue was with the media following along with the investigation's progress.  People close to Trump were indicted and jailed in that process, for god's sake.  And the expectation is what?  That the media simply won't cover it because of those individuals' proximity to the president?  If anything, that only makes it even _more_ newsworthy.


That article from the New York Times is trash. You're so damn gullible. Read the first paragraph. 



> Some of Robert S. Mueller III’s investigators have told associates that Attorney General William P. Barr failed to adequately portray the findings of their inquiry and that they were more troubling for President Trump than Mr. Barr indicated, according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations.



Oh My God! That article hurts. Notice how safe they play it. It's literal journalism trash 101. They use very specific language to protect themselves and weasel their way out in an event that they are wrong. Look at the first word "SOME"  Ok how many? Was it 2, 3, 5? Whose upset? Why? We are literally told nothing about anything. 


Look at the whole first sentence now. Investigators have told associates. Who are the associates? Was it someone working in government? Was it a friend or someone working at McDonalds? 


And it gets worse with the ending sentence "according to government officials and others familiar with their simmering frustrations" 
Welcome to crap journalism of 2019 you gullible person. It summarizes like this. The New York Times anonymous source told them, that someone else told the anonymous source, that a couple of people told them, that they are upset. I heared from my friend, that has another friend, that has a cousin, who has a brother, who knows a guy that said this. That is literal hersay. The worst type of evidence. How can you verify that? That is not a direct source from Mullers team. Bravo. Bravo New York Times for excellent journalism. This did this for 2 years. You should've learned by now. 

How is this not over. Uhhhhh, my head hurts!


----------



## Xzi (Apr 5, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Oh My God! That article hurts. Notice how safe they play it. It's literal journalism trash 101. They use very specific language to protect themselves and weasel their way out in an event that they are wrong. Look at the first word "SOME" Ok how many? Was it 2, 3, 5? Whose upset? Why? We are literally told nothing about anything.


I guess if you ignore all the definitions of every word they typed there, yeah, they told us nothing.

Or, god forbid, you could actually read the whole article instead of the little bullet points at the top of it.  Then you might get a few of the answers you're seeking.  Regardless, the Washington Post has since corroborated this reporting with their sources, so feel free to read their articles on the topic if NYT's writing style is really that offensive to your delicate eyes.

We also have reporting that several of Mueller's team wrote their own summaries which they assumed Barr would release to the public.  He did not.  This is looking more and more like a cover-up to the layman with every passing day, never mind my opinions on the matter.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 17, 2019)

The redacted Mueller report is going to be made public tomorrow, according to the Justice Department:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/politics/mueller-report-release.html

For some reason Trump's team decided it would be a good idea to write a "counter report" as well:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-legal-team-mueller-counter-report

That's a big red flag that the Mueller report isn't nearly as dismissive of all charges as Barr makes it out to be.  Now it's just a matter of seeing how much Barr has redacted, and how much information can actually be gained from the redacted report.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 18, 2019)

truthfully though this will change little. those who bat for him will still do so with glee.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> truthfully though this will change little. those who bat for him will still do so with glee.


There's also the fact that Barr intends to give another long press conference before finally just releasing the damn thing.  Gotta put as much spin as possible on it before people get to decide for themselves.

OTOH, House Democrats will be subpoenaing the unredacted report the next day, so perhaps we'll get _some_ form of accountability.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 18, 2019)

Facts don't change people's minds.


Once someone believe they belong to a certain group, many humans will simply defend that group regardless of what happens. Humans are social creatures, not accurate creatures. The brain's goal is to ensure social bonds are strengthened, not that truth is accepted. Which means no matter how obvious the situation, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, the tendency will always be to defend a notion supported by "your people". The brain's loyalty isn't to any truth, but to the tribe it thinks it belongs to. The tribe could be based around anything, from a single opinion to a generation of ideologies. It is a tendency every human has, and can vary in strength depending on an individual's relationship to their perceived tribe and how much they value it. Convincing someone their tribe isn't what they think it is, especially if they are heavily and personally invested in their tribe, is a nearly impossible task. If you think you never do this, you are wrong. It is human. We all do it. Even I do it and I'm...well, we try and get better.

If you want people to understand the facts about whatever golden calf popped into your mind, you first have to get the person to understand their own individual viewpoints. After that, establish both how these viewpoints and actions should actually be expressed to be legit and the kind of evidence we would see if they actually held those viewpoints. Finally, you establish what the viewpoints and actions are of those who they think represent them. With this, you can establish how the golden calf viewpoints and actions make them not part of the person's tribe. Then you can explain the facts. To avoid yourself being the incorrect person, you must apply this process to yourself first and foremost, and always being open to going through it again when you get new information. Most people go about this process backwards, starting with facts and assuming the rest will attend to itself, thinking humans are logical creatures at heart. All humans are backwards creatures, and very much avoid being wrong no matter how wrong they are, which makes it very difficult to convince them. Even so, it's important to try.

Brains are weird, though. it constantly lies to you to keep you safe. But screw safe, we want the truth. If your goal ain't protecting the future of the human race to live and live well, you aren't doing it right. Agree to that, figure out what an ideal future looks like, figure out what the current world looks like, and THEN figure out how to get there from here.


*cough* sorry, psych rambling. Politics being what they are, we currently do not have proper checks and balances in the USA, though it is still a bit functional one at the moment. Our 4th estate is eroded. The report will be interesting, but I don't see much coming out of it other than "we should do this". Some people may lose their jobs or get arrested, but not the movers and shakers. Or am I just too jaded?


tl;dr: facts don't change folk's mind as much as realizing your friends aren't actually on their side. Full report will help arrest some folks, but won't really affect the big movers and shakers.



Xzi said:


> There's also the fact that Barr intends to give another long press conference before finally just releasing the damn thing.  Gotta put as much spin as possible on it before people get to decide for themselves.
> 
> OTOH, House Democrats will be subpoenaing the unredacted report the next day, so perhaps we'll get _some_ form of accountability.



Do you think this will help much in any shape or form? The only thing I can think of is it might help push folks not to vote for trump and republicans if it is handled correctly.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Gotta put as much spin as possible on it before people get to decide for themselves.




There's no shortage of that happening from the left already, and they haven't even seen any of it yet. 

I read a small group of members of Congress will be given access to the unredacted report. I suggested as much would be how they handled this sometime earlier in the thread.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I read a small group of members of Congress will be given access to the unredacted report.


Where did you read that?  Last I heard, Barr was against releasing the unredacted report to anybody, and I don't think the House would be threatening a subpoena if there were plans to give it to any of them.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 18, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Where did you read that?  Last I heard, Barr was against releasing the unredacted report to anybody, and I don't think the House would be threatening a subpoena if there were plans to give it to any of them.




Sorry, I could've sworn that's how I read it, but the articles I see now say it will be a 'less-redacted' version of the report. No real substantive details on what would get unredacted in the more complete version, or what would remain redacted. I guess there's no way they could describe that. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...af3d2e67c6d_story.html?utm_term=.d61b7e34ba80


----------



## Xzi (Apr 18, 2019)

Redacted report is in the wild, added a link to OP.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/read-text-full-mueller-report-n994551


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Facts don't change people's minds.
> 
> 
> Once someone believe they belong to a certain group, many humans will simply defend that group regardless of what happens. Humans are social creatures, not accurate creatures. The brain's goal is to ensure social bonds are strengthened, not that truth is accepted. Which means no matter how obvious the situation, no matter how overwhelming the evidence, the tendency will always be to defend a notion supported by "your people". The brain's loyalty isn't to any truth, but to the tribe it thinks it belongs to. The tribe could be based around anything, from a single opinion to a generation of ideologies. It is a tendency every human has, and can vary in strength depending on an individual's relationship to their perceived tribe and how much they value it. Convincing someone their tribe isn't what they think it is, especially if they are heavily and personally invested in their tribe, is a nearly impossible task. If you think you never do this, you are wrong. It is human. We all do it. Even I do it and I'm...well, we try and get better.
> ...


Facts don’t change people’s mind. You can list all the facts and it means nothing to these people. You can see all the mental gymnastics people are doing.

I don’t care about liking or not liking Trump. I care about the facts. Did he collude with Russia yes or no? And Mueller report says Trump did not collude with Russia. And I’m not going to make up stories just because you don’t like him. You attack their actual real bad things, not made up stuff because in the end it makes you look bad and crazy.


Yet these people are convinced that he did. They don’t realize how crazy they are. They are not self aware. Just look at my comment pointing out the flaws in the article. They then reply you didn’t read the whole article as if that’s a defense to try to debunk what I said when in fact I did read the article, and pointed out a flaw in it. It’s mental gymnastics. They are part of a tribe. They are so bad a looking at what evidence is. If you wanna know why people don’t believe in global warming, or believe in a flat earth, this should give you a real life study at the crazy people do to believe in their made up stuff.

Already the media is trying to twist the releases redacted report again. I’m not going to even bother trying to reason to with crazy people anymore. It’s a waste of my time trying to convince crazies. Let them live in crazy land but then see no criminal charges against Russia Collusion in the next couple of weeks. I’m going to let that speak for itself.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 19, 2019)

dude...there is so much to disect out of the report. Many things which raise questions but just going "NO COLLUSION SEE SEE!?? YOU ALL CRAZY" sounds more like an emotional response than a subject of productive conversation. Did you sit down and read it? as there is a LOT to unpack on it. My advice to you though, lay off the social media scene and conversation forums if back and forth conversation is bothering you that much.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t care about liking or not liking Trump. I care about the facts. Did he collude with Russia yes or no? And Mueller report says Trump did not collude with Russia.


Actually the report says Trump _did_ order collusion from some of his subordinates.  It's only by the grace of them disobeying those orders that collusion didn't happen and/or can't be proven.  Also a pattern of lies, refusals to testify, and destruction of evidence made it harder to prove out as well.

The topic of obstruction of justice is a little more clear cut, however: Mueller lays out enough evidence to objectively find Trump guilty on ten counts.  The final determination on whether to go through with charging him was never meant to be left to Barr, either.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Facts don’t change people’s mind. You can list all the facts and it means nothing to these people. You can see all the mental gymnastics people are doing.
> 
> I don’t care about liking or not liking Trump. I care about the facts. Did he collude with Russia yes or no? And Mueller report says Trump did not collude with Russia. And I’m not going to make up stories just because you don’t like him. You attack their actual real bad things, not made up stuff because in the end it makes you look bad and crazy.
> 
> ...


i was pretty sure the report summary said they didn't find direct evidence of "collusion" (which will have a specific legal definition probably, not just "worked with"?), but of a lot of other evidence of shady things they would rather congress deal with? like trying to work with russia to get dirt on hillary? and they "couldn't rule out collusion"  as well? is this not true?

*edit: found this: "Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

so...what does finding no collusion mean if you think it has no real meaning? or that you couldn't rule it out?


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 19, 2019)

I haven't found time to read the full report yet. So I'm going by newspapers / people in this thread that say that there are ten counts of evidence. The thing is...these are attempts to influence the investigation. It makes him look bad and suspicious, but not guilty. And whether I like it or not (hint: I don't like it), it's not a crime to WANT to collude with Russia. If the subordinates just said "screw that, I'm not doing what the president asked me to"...then there is no collusion.

So basically...what I want to know when reading the document, is whether Barr was right with his four page conclusion or not.
...and because we're talking about Trump, I have to stress something obvious: I want to know when reading the report whether BARR'S CONCLUSION was correct. I have no doubt Trump already had his interpretation of the summary ready before he even read it (and likewise: he now pretends that he is innocent ...because he could have fired everyone investigating him  * ), so his interpretation of this summary doesn't count.



*yeah...the least you can say is that news revolving Trump is interesting. My otherwise local and pretty "serious" newspaper downright compares Donald Trump's recent tweeting spree with "a Game of Thrones style announcement for his political opponents".


----------



## Clydefrosch (Apr 19, 2019)

Obviously his conclusion was not correct.

Barr said no collusion, no obstruction to be found, Trump is exonerated. The report pretty boldly reads that Trump is anything but exonerated at the very least in regards to obstruction. The many counts of obstruction that ought to be judged by congress and in a sane world, would've impeached any other president long before this report was even released, because a bunch of them were done is such broad daylight to begin with, are there and they matter.

Even if the report had concluded that there wasn't even the slightest hint of collusion at all (which it does not) and if the entire collusion thing was actually made up (which it wasn't), even then, obstructing the investigation would still be an impeachable crime.


And we really all don't want to even think about the bombshells Barr likely redacted away.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Actually the report says Trump _did_ order collusion from some of his subordinates.  It's only by the grace of them disobeying those orders that collusion didn't happen and/or can't be proven.  Also a pattern of lies, refusals to testify, and destruction of evidence made it harder to prove out as well.



I believe you have that reversed. The report flat out shoots down the collusion delusion. It's on the obstruction issue that Mueller's team could not reach unanimous agreement (therefore, reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned), and one of the reasons why was because Trump allegedly gave orders to subordinates who then either refused to comply or simply didn't do it. 

https://abcnews.go.com/US/start-her...tice-robert-muellers-report/story?id=62483654





> The topic of obstruction of justice is a little more clear cut, however: Mueller lays out enough evidence to *objectively* find Trump guilty on ten counts.  The final determination on whether to go through with charging him was never meant to be left to Barr, either.



If it was "objectively" obvious, the report would've said so. The _possible_ instances of obstruction listed by the report are theoretical and very subjective, i.e. dependent on individual interpretation and opinion. That's why his team couldn't agree on obstruction, that's why they punted. 


Keep digging. I'm sure there's a pony somewhere under that big pile of horseshit. As Matt Walther said in his article yesterday at theweek.com, "Obstruction is the new collusion." Have fun with that.

https://theweek.com/articles/833487/obstruction-new-collusion


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2019)

I’m disappointed in the “End Game” conclusion. They promised this great big Collusion for 2 years but didn’t deliver. People paid for this right? Can we all get a refund. 

There is no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti monster so therefore it doesn’t mean it’s not fake. Absence of Evidence doesn’t mean there is no evidence so i’m still going to believe in my meatball supreme overlord.




I’ll just leave it to the crazies that think Putin is black mailing Trump to do his bidding with a secret recorded video of Trump hiring a bunch of prostitutes to pee on a Hotel Bed that was used by Barack and Michelle Obama in Moscow. Which was in that lovely dossier the media kept propping up, then ignored pretending they never did. 

Bullshit detectors should have been flying off doubting the dossier. You guys are on camera, you can’t pretend you didn’t prop it up. Great journalism guys. It should have never been propped up in the first place if they actually read the stupid thing. And doing the same with the Mueller report. Shame shame shame.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> If it was "objectively" obvious, the report would've said so.


Under special counsel/DOJ rules, a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.  Therefore this report was never meant to make a determination on guilt, that was meant to be punted to the House, but it comes as close as legally possible to stating that Trump is guilty of OoJ.  "Cannot be exonerated" is lawyer-speak in this case for "bitch be guilty af."  Barr severely mischaracterized this portion of the report.

As much as allies of Trump would love to breathe a sigh of relief and pretend this is all over now, the report also details all the evidence Mueller's team handed off to other investigations.  Fourteen of them, in fact.  Hopefully some of which end up having a bit more teeth without the spectre of a shady and corrupt DoJ hovering over them.



SG854 said:


> Bullshit detectors should have been flying off doubting the dossier.


So there's actually news on that front in the Mueller report as well:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tasneemnashrulla/mueller-report-on-alleged-pee-tape

Michael Cohen was texted by a Russian associate to tell him that he had "stopped the flow of tapes from Russia, but not sure if there's anything else."  Giorgi Rtskhiladze, the man who contacted Cohen, later claimed that the tapes were fake but that he failed to tell Cohen about it.  Conveniently he had already destroyed the tapes, of course, so we'll never truly know now.


----------



## erikas (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Under special counsel/DOJ rules, a sitting president cannot be charged with a crime.  Therefore this report was never meant to make a determination on guilt, that was meant to be punted to the House, but it comes as close as legally possible to stating that Trump is guilty of OoJ.
> 
> As much as allies of Trump would love to breathe a sigh of relief and pretend this is all over now, the report also details all the evidence Mueller's team handed off to other investigations.  Fourteen of them, in fact.  Hopefully some of which end up having a bit more teeth without the spectre of a shady and corrupt DoJ hovering over them.
> 
> ...


Dude, I'm not replying to anything in particular, but you are just sad. Read up on the sunken cost fallacy, admit you were wrong and move the fuck on. Trump is still your president, he's not getting impeached, there's no evidence that can get him impeached even if they released the unredacted report. I mean what exactly do you expect to find there? You and all the "TrumpRussia" conspirators are literally worse than Alex Jones at this point. At least he was funny. Just zoom out of your narrow world view and answer this question: What exactly has Putin gained since Trump became president?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2019)

erikas said:


> Dude, I'm not replying to anything in particular, but you are just sad. Read up on the sunken cost fallacy, admit you were wrong and move the fuck on.


I'm not putting any more stock into the conclusion of the Mueller report than is necessary.  That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore parts of it just because it might hurt someone's fee-fees, sorry.



erikas said:


> there's no evidence that can get him impeached even if they released the unredacted report.


This level of blind devotion is scary.  You're suggesting that no level of criminality is enough to start the impeachment process, simply because Trump has lowered the bar to the ocean floor.  Would you defend drone strikes targeting American citizens on American soil, as well?


----------



## erikas (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not putting any more stock into the conclusion of the Mueller report than is necessary.  That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore parts of it just because it might hurt someone's fee-fees, sorry.
> 
> 
> This level of blind devotion is scary.  You're suggesting that no level of criminality is enough to start the impeachment process, simply because Trump has lowered the bar to the ocean floor.  Would you defend drone strikes targeting American citizens on American soil, as well?


What exactly did Trump do? Also what devotion? Im not even american.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "Cannot be exonerated" is lawyer-speak in this case for "bitch be guilty af."



So you know this because you're a lawyer? I couldn't disagree more with what you said there. Also I think it was entirely inappropriate of Mueller's team to include that in the report, but that's water under the bridge at this point. The foundation of the American justice system is innocent until proven guilty. If the special counsel could not make a definite statement to the DOJ as to whether an offense occurred, then the report should be limited to ONLY listing the facts accumulated by the investigation. What they did instead is say, "can't say he's guilty here, but won't say innocent either." That's fundamentally wrong. If they can't say guilty with confidence (i.e. they believe it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt), then the subject of the investigation is innocent. Period.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2019)

erikas said:


> What exactly did Trump do?


Right now there's only enough evidence to find him guilty of obstruction of justice, ten counts.  There are _nineteen_ other ongoing investigations into various aspects of his businesses and conduct while in government, many of them offshoots of the Mueller investigation itself.

On the bar being lowered: Nixon was impeached for far less.  One of his articles of impeachment was, "lying to the American people," so if that's still valid, we've got Trump on hundreds of counts there.  The man can't even be bothered to tell the truth about where his father was born.



erikas said:


> Also what devotion? Im not even american.


Then I have no idea why you're trying to belittle the significance of hard evidence and years worth of investigative work.  By now you should know that gaslighting isn't effective on me.



Hanafuda said:


> So you know this because you're a lawyer?


I mean, I've spoken to lawyers in my lifetime, and that's certainly what all the lawyers on TV are currently saying.



Hanafuda said:


> The foundation of the American justice system is innocent until proven guilty.


_Gasp_, so you mean to tell me that the AG isn't meant to make a determination on innocence or guilt before anybody else has seen the evidence, and/or has had a chance to let the legal process play out?  What a novel idea.

The DOJ is just the latest in a long line of institutions that have been cannibalized by Trump's cronies and sycophants.  They've lost their independence and impartiality as a result.  Trust in these institutions is now at an all-time low, and it's gonna take decades to repair the damage done.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I care about the facts. Did he collude with Russia yes or no? And Mueller report says Trump did not collude with Russia.



No it doesn't. It says they found no evidence that he colluded. It also said that Trump was scared of the investigation and tried to derail it, so it seems pretty obvious that Trump himself thought there was evidence to find. There is a slim chance he is actually innocent, but he spends a lot of effort in making himself look guilty.



erikas said:


> What exactly did Trump do?



When? The court cases by his fraudulent business operations are public record, he settled them all out of court before his presidency started. You can start reading there and won't be done by the time the full document is released. Then there is all the sexual assaults that he has bragged about.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2019)

smf said:


> No it doesn't. It says they found no evidence that he colluded.


I think you and SG854 are in agreement there, you may have misread him.



smf said:


> It also said that Trump was scared of the investigation and tried to derail it, so it seems pretty obvious that Trump himself thought there was evidence to find.


Obvious indeed.  Trump believed there was enough evidence to end his presidency.  Page 290: "This is the end of my presidency.  I'm fucked."

On a relevant side note: House Democrats issued a subpoena for the unredacted Mueller report today, potentially setting the stage for a court battle if Barr decides not to cooperate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/us/politics/Mueller-subpoena.html


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I think you and SG854 are in agreement there, you may have misread him.



No, we are not in agreement. He said "And Mueller report says Trump did not collude with Russia."

Mueller didn't say that at all, saying you can't find evidence of X doesn't mean you are saying X didn't happen.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2019)

smf said:


> No, we are not in agreement. He said "And Mueller report says Trump did not collude with Russia."
> 
> Mueller didn't say that at all, saying you can't find evidence of X doesn't mean you are saying X didn't happen.


Oh I see.  It was my misunderstanding, then.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh I see.  It was my misunderstanding, then.



It's easy to do, even the stable genius misunderstood what Muellers report said as Trump claimed he was exonerated.

If he doesn't understand it, then what chance do us mere mortals have 

Although I'm starting to wonder if Trump isn't the stable genius he claims.

All we know is that right now they haven't managed to pin anything on him definitively, which is important in terms of the legal implications but irrelevant in terms of whether he did it or not. Lots of guilty people go free and innocent people locked up, it's a bit of a mess (it's one of the reasons the death penalty is utterly wrong)


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 19, 2019)

The only thing that's crazy here, is that there are people still saying that he is 100% innocent.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 19, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> The only thing that's crazy here, is that there are people still saying that he is 100% innocent.


Naturally.  Fox News and other right-wing media outlets are gonna be screaming "NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION" for the rest of time.  After all, now that we're living through Orwell's 1984, ignorance is knowledge.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2019)

Xzi said:


> After all, now that we're living through Orwell's 1984, ignorance is knowledge.



I wonder who they'll be angry with when it all falls apart.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 19, 2019)

smf said:


> No, we are not in agreement. He said "And Mueller report says Trump did not collude with Russia."
> 
> Mueller didn't say that at all, saying you can't find evidence of X doesn't mean you are saying X didn't happen.


Are you a rapist? I have no evidence of you being a rapist but that doesn't mean you didn't rape anyone and doesn't mean you are 100% innocent. In my mind rape happened.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Are you a rapist? I have no evidence of you being a rapist but that doesn't mean you didn't rape anyone and doesn't mean you are 100% innocent. In my mind rape happened.


In this context, it means they're saying they don't know what happened exactly, but there is loads of evidence of stuff happening and they'd rather not make declarative statements. In your scenario, you have no evidence of anything happening.


----------



## smf (Apr 19, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Are you a rapist? I have no evidence of you being a rapist but that doesn't mean you didn't rape anyone and doesn't mean you are 100% innocent. In my mind rape happened.



I can't control what is in your mind and you are free to imagine me doing all manner of things if it helps you.

You don't have enough evidence to say that I'm not a rapist, it's an impossible position to provide proof for (you would have to have me under constant surveillance since I was born). You only can say that you have no evidence I am. Which is my point. If it makes you feel better, I cannot confirm that you are not a rapist & neither can you.

I assume you thought that I would be so upset you suggested I was a rapist that I would breakdown & change my objectivity, but no.

There is plenty of evidence Trump was crooked before he became president, so I think it's unlikely that he managed to stop being crooked. The "stop looking for evidence as you don't have any evidence yet" argument is rather dumb, he is making it so that people have to keep investigating him.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Naturally.  Fox News and other right-wing media outlets are gonna be screaming "NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION" for the rest of time.



You'd like to stop them?




KingVamp said:


> The only thing that's crazy here, is that there are people still saying that he is 100% innocent.



It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. And it's an all or nothing game. No conviction? 100% innocent. There's no 30% innocent/70% guilty.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> You'd like to stop them?


Even though Trump and his team had over 100 contacts with Russians and certainly made attempts to collude, the report is clear that there isn't enough evidence to move on indictment.  So I'm mostly fine with them screaming "NO COLLUSION" even though it's very disingenuous.  The ten counts of obstruction of justice, OTOH, include all three aspects that need to be touched on in order to indict for it.  The obstructive act itself, nexus to an official proceeding, and intent.  All three are meticulously detailed for each and every count.  The Mueller report is essentially a roadmap to impeachment or indictment itself, and it specifically mentions both of these as avenues for holding the president accountable for his actions.  The latter as an option only once Trump is no longer in office.  Suggesting "no obstruction" is therefore clearly a bold-faced lie.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Even though Trump and his team had over 100 contacts with Russians and certainly made attempts to collude, the report is clear that there isn't enough evidence to move on indictment.  So I'm mostly fine with them screaming "NO COLLUSION" even though it's very disingenuous.  The ten counts of obstruction of justice, OTOH, include all three aspects that need to be touched on in order to indict for it.  The obstructive act itself, nexus to an official proceeding, and intent.  All three are meticulously detailed for each and every count.  The Mueller report is essentially a roadmap to impeachment or indictment itself, and it specifically mentions both of these as avenues for holding the president accountable for his actions.  The latter as an option only once Trump is no longer in office.  Suggesting "no obstruction" is therefore clearly a bold-faced lie.


Basically they were trying to collude, but they were so incompetent they couldn't even collude like they wanted? is that the gist? X'D


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Basically they were trying to collude, but they were so incompetent they couldn't even collude like they wanted? is that the gist? X'D


Roger Stone and Paul Manafort are the two avenues through which collusion possibly succeeded, and I have a feeling that some of the redacted portions are in relation to one or both of them.  It would certainly solve the mystery of why Barr is so desperate to keep the full report away from Congress.

Edit: Yikes, Trump is gonna give us no choice but to impeach him, he's really going off the rails now.  He's accusing Mueller's team of treason, and vowing to "turn tables" on them.  This a day after his victory strut of "total exoneration."  Somebody must have read more of the report to him.


----------



## brickmii82 (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Roger Stone and Paul Manafort are the two avenues through which collusion possibly succeeded, and I have a feeling that some of the redacted portions are in relation to one or both of them.  It would certainly solve the mystery of why Barr is so desperate to keep the full report away from Congress.
> 
> Edit: Yikes, Trump is gonna give us no choice but to impeach him, he's really going off the rails now.  He's accusing Mueller's team of treason, and vowing to "turn tables" on them.  This a day after his victory strut of "total exoneration."  Somebody must have read more of the report to him.


Unfortunately, absolutely nothing is going to happen and nothing will change until election time. You're seriously living a pipe dream if you think impeachment is on the table. Even then, young people need to make it to the polls if they want him out. I work in a heavily retiree area and these old ass people still have a hard on for him for the most part. The 65+ generation has a stupid high turnout, and quite a few are still in favor of him. In the end, young people need to vote and get involved. If you really want to change this dude, start focusing efforts on getting younger people into the booths rather than something so hard and unlikely to accomplish.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2019)

FWIW, my question was more concerning freedom of the press.




Xzi said:


> The Mueller report is essentially a roadmap to impeachment or indictment itself ....




Well, isn't that convenient?!?





Xzi said:


> Edit: Yikes, Trump is gonna give us no choice but to impeach him, he's really going off the rails now.  He's accusing Mueller's team of treason, and vowing to "turn tables" on them.  This a day after his victory strut of "total exoneration."  Somebody must have read more of the report to him.



I didn't read that quote as being in reference to the special counsel's investigation team. It doesn't specify, but on the conservative side of the argument the concerns have been about abuse of the FISA warrant system by officials in the Obama administration, including withholding information from a Federal judge and knowingly presenting false evidence to obtain a warrant to "legally" spy against the opposing parties' Presidential election campaign. The persons behind that are who the President was referring to when me said, “It is now finally time to turn the tables and bring justice to some very sick and dangerous people who have committed very serious crimes, perhaps even spying or treason. This should never happen again!” But you can believe the British leftwing news source if you like.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

brickmii82 said:


> Unfortunately, absolutely nothing is going to happen and nothing will change until election time. You're seriously living a pipe dream if you think impeachment is on the table.


It wasn't before, but the Mueller report is quickly changing minds.  Elizabeth Warren is now calling for impeachment, so obviously she's no longer afraid of any potential political fallout despite being a 2020 contender.

I'm not of the delusion that the Senate would dare to go through with conviction, but the precedent still needs to be made clear: criminality coming from the White House will not be tolerated.  If one side wants to defend said criminality, let them suffer the consequences come election time.



Hanafuda said:


> Well, isn't that convenient?!?


Probably not the word I would use, more like "unsurprising."  After all, Trump has practically committed obstruction of justice on live TV at least once or twice.  To find out he did so behind closed doors as well is not that shocking.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Elizabeth Warren is now calling for impeachment, so obviously she's no longer afraid of any potential political fallout despite being a 2020 contender.



She's not good for anything but a laugh. My cat's turds have a better chance of being elected.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> She's not good for anything but a laugh. My cat's turds have a better chance of being elected.


She is one of the front runners, but her chances of being elected are irrelevant to the situation at hand.  As is that race-baiting Tweet.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> She is one of the front runners, but her chances of being elected are irrelevant to the situation at hand.  As is that race-baiting Tweet.




It's not race-baiting. Everybody's more Native American than Warren. (she's less than the US average for persons of Euro descent, by far) If anything related to Warren qualifies as "race-baiting," it was her lies about being Native American in the first place.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> It's not race-baiting. Everybody's more Native American than Warren.


And everybody's father is more German than Trump's is.  At least she provided something to back her claim, even if she "isn't Native American enough" for your tastes.


----------



## cots (Apr 20, 2019)

We had two years of the Liberal media slandering Trump over the fact he colluded with Russia and that this investigation would prove it. Where are the apologies now for lying to the public, the slander, the misleading and the fact they were, um, WRONG?!?

Now it's more personal attacks against Trump and "but, look what else the report has in it". However, I like an apology for two years of feeding the public bullshit conspiracy theories. Not that you're going to get a Liberal to tell you they were wrong ... That'll never happen.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

cots said:


> We had two years of the Liberal media slandering Trump over the fact he colluded with Russia and that this investigation would prove it. Where are the apologies now for lying to the public, the slander, the misleading and the fact they were, um, WRONG?!?


"HEY LIBERALS, you better apologize for this investigation which was started by Republicans, headed by Republicans, and targeted Republicans!  And you better do it before anyone has the full Mueller report in-hand!  I'm warning ya!"


----------



## cots (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "HEY LIBERALS, you better apologize for this investigation which was started by Republicans, headed by Republicans, and targeted Republicans!  And you better do it before anyone has the full Mueller report in-hand!  I'm warning ya!"



Doesn't change the fact the Liberals were wrong. Side stepping my statement? Typical Liberal nonsense. You and the rest of your cronies were wrong. Dead simple. You were wrong. I will enjoy the satisfaction of the fact that you all made yourselves look like idiots for two years and now can't simply apologize for your bullshit. I'm reveling in it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Doesn't change the fact the Liberals were wrong.


Wrong about what exactly, buttercup?  Every outlet I pay attention to just covered the events of the investigation as they unfolded.  The Mueller report also doesn't state that there was "no collusion," only that there was insufficient evidence to indict for it.  It states in no uncertain terms that Trump and his team were attempting to run constant interference in regard to the collusion investigation.  Nothing about the report has Trump coming out of it smelling like roses, it's all damaging to different extents, and there will be further investigations as a result.

Enjoy your victory lap though, I honestly don't care.  It's not like you're actually going to read the report, you'll just stay in your bubble of ignorance and hope nothing pointy gets too close.


----------



## cots (Apr 20, 2019)

Now I'll sit back and watch the Liberals do what they do best and turn their hate machine onto the person they once praised due to the fact they can no longer use him. Basically, they are now going after Mueller. What a bunch of back stabbing cowards (that I must point out where WRONG about collusion). inb4 "but this, but that, (insert unrelated Trump hate here), but, what about, but, but, but". Hahaha!


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Now I'll sit back and watch the Liberals do what they do best and turn their hate machine onto the person they once praised due to the fact they can no longer use him. Basically, they are now going after Mueller.


Seriously, that's the line you're running with?  Trump is the only one to attack Mueller as "treasonous" today.  Thus it's the Republicans who are acting cutthroat toward their own.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Edit: Yikes, Trump is gonna give us no choice but to impeach him, he's really going off the rails now.  He's accusing Mueller's team of treason, and vowing to "turn tables" on them.  This a day after his victory strut of "total exoneration."  Somebody must have read more of the report to him.





cots said:


> Now I'll sit back and watch the Liberals do what they do best and turn their hate machine onto the person they once praised due to the fact they can no longer use him. Basically, they are now going after Mueller. What a bunch of back stabbing cowards (that I must point out where WRONG about collusion). inb4 "but this, but that, (insert unrelated Trump hate here), but, what about, but, but, but". Hahaha!



So much projection. Like a lot of these people that keep defending Trump.


----------



## cots (Apr 20, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> So much projection. Like a lot of these people that keep defending Trump.



I'm not one to defend Trump either. I just dislike Liberals. I'm not a Republican or Democrat. You'd figure after two years of spreading rumors and lying that once you got proved to be wrong you'd apologize. Clearly, Liberals don't have that in them. No balls, no brains.



Xzi said:


> Seriously, that's the line you're running with?  Trump is the only one to attack Mueller as "treasonous" today.  Thus it's the Republicans who are acting cutthroat toward their own.



So no apology for being wrong?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

cots said:


> So no apology for being wrong?


Are you going to apologize for that lie in your last post about Democrats attacking Mueller?  I'm still in the dark about what exactly it is I'm meant to be apologizing for.  Just to be clear: you're aware that _I'm _not the "liberal media" and not representative of it, right?


----------



## cots (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Are you going to apologize for that lie in your last post about Democrats attacking Mueller?  I'm still in the dark about what exactly it is I'm meant to be apologizing for.  Just to be clear: you're aware that _I'm _not the "liberal media" and not representative of it, right?



You clearly have Liberal standards (looking at your post history) and have been defending the Liberal media tooth and nail for their 2 year made up bullshit campaign. You mentioned after Barr gave his interpretation on the report that Congress needed to see it and now that they've seen it and there is agreement that there was no collusion that should solidify you concerns. Of course, now the Liberals are crying "We need the full report, who cares if it damages National Security". That's a separate issue that I haven't read you taking part in. 

Anyway, when I'm WRONG ABOUT SOMETHING I apologize and move on. That's how a reputable man operates. If not it just goes to show what type of character a person has; you know, not being able to apologize for being wrong. Something both the Liberals and Trump should learn a lesson about. You know, going around spouting fantasies and acting like you can't be wrong doesn't work no matter what political affiliation you have. It just seems that it's acceptable to do if you're a Liberal. Gotta love those "floating standards".

Regardless, you were wrong about the collusion. Don't apologize. I didn't expect you to have enough integrity to do so to begin with.


----------



## Kigiru (Apr 20, 2019)

The only good thing that came from this absolutely unecessary mess is seeing that one crazy reporter on CNN losing her mind. It was waste of time, money and beautiful showcase of why far-leftists are just bunch of mentaly ill people.
Between this and reaction of people to Trump's saying that he will consider releasing immigrants to sanctuary cities (hint for less bright people - that was not his actual plan) it seems that his already strong position just get better and there's huge chance that Trump 2020 will be a thing.
You people that hate Trump so much are losing because instead of focusing to make yourself look better, you just are directing low-level smear campaigns against him that just make you all look like frantic dumbasses.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

cots said:


> You clearly have Liberal standards (looking at your post history) and have been defending the Liberal media tooth and nail for their 2 year made up bullshit campaign.


Again, what you call a "made up bullshit campaign," the rest of us call reporting on the relevant facts as they're made available.  Your crusade seems to be less about pointing out specific inaccuracies as they occur, and more about attacking freedom of the press in general.  Which is a suspiciously Trump-like behavior for someone who supposedly doesn't support the man.



cots said:


> You mentioned after Barr gave his interpretation on the report that Congress needed to see it and now that they've seen it and there is agreement that there was no collusion that should solidify you concerns.


Congress got the same redacted report as the public.  It's only today that they've subpoenaed the full, unredacted report, and that's likely to take some time and face resistance from Barr.  I'll meet you in the middle and say that there was no _successful_ collusion according to the report, but nowhere does it say collusion was never attempted, and there's a lot of evidence to the contrary included.



Kigiru said:


> you just are directing low-level smear campaigns against him that just make you all look like frantic dumbasses.


Oof.  So when a thorough, by-the-books investigation headed by a Republican doesn't show quite the results you want it to, it's suddenly demoted to a "low-level smear campaign?"  That confirmation bias runs deep.


----------



## cots (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again, what you call a "made up bullshit campaign," the rest of us call reporting on the relevant facts as they're made available.  Your crusade seems to be less about pointing out specific inaccuracies as they occur, and more about attacking freedom of the press in general.  Which is a suspiciously Trump-like behavior for someone who supposedly doesn't support the man.
> 
> Congress got the same redacted report as the public.  It's only today that they've subpoenaed the full, unredacted report, and that's likely to take some time and face resistance from Barr.  I'll meet you in the middle and say that there was no _successful_ collusion according to the report, but nowhere does it say collusion was never attempted, and there's a lot of evidence to the contrary included.



Facts? What facts? 2 years of posting stories on how Trump colluded with Russia with completely made up or opinion based arguments with mostly speculation based on a report, that when comes out, vindicates the person the Liberal media spent 2 years running over. Dude, you show it, the same symptoms. You'll go blue in the face before you admit you're wrong. That's fine. I understand the Liberal illness. Have a good night.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

cots said:


> Facts? What facts? 2 years of posting stories on how Trump colluded with Russia with completely made up or opinion based arguments with mostly speculation based on a report, that when comes out, vindicates the person the Liberal media spent 2 years running over. Dude, you show it, the same symptoms. You'll go blue in the fact before you admit you're wrong. That's fine. I understand the Liberal illness. Have a good night.


You really can't be intellectually honest about this discussion without first reading the report yourself, or at least the highlights.  All you're doing right now is regurgitating headlines from right-wing outlets instead of being willing to absorb the information you need to.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

I didn't want to post anything until I had a chance to read the entire (redacted) report. Some key takeaways, since I've seen some misunderstandings:

Trump seems to have obstructed justice.
Whether or not Trump obstructed justice, the report was never going to rule that he did. It would be unfair to accuse a president of a crime if he can't be indicted, since Mueller believes a trial is the way for an accused person to fight an accusation.
Mueller all but begged for his report to be used as template for impeachment or a tool to be used after Trump is no longer president, even citing statutes of limitations.
There was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but the counterintelligence portion of the report, which includes but isn't limited to an investigation of whether or not people in the Trump campaign were compromised by Russia, isn't present.
Mueller all but begged for Congress to pursue the counterintelligence report.
Members of the Trump campaign appear to have attempted to conspire with Russia with regard to the 2016 election.
Barr grossly misrepresented what was in the report, specifically with regard to obstruction.
If you haven't read the full report, I highly recommend it.

Edit: Trump also has lots of legal issues unrelated to the Mueller investigation that we should not forget about.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

cots said:


> A lot of Liberals do exhibit mental thought processes that related to documented illnesses.


Let's not fucking go there.  I'd be very tempted to say that anybody who lived through eight years of GWB, two wars started under false pretenses, and a massive economic crash has to be on the spectrum if they were willing to vote Republican again.  I never thought I'd see the day where they elected an even bigger dipshit, but their two primary finalists were _Donald Trump _and _Ted Cruz_.  You couldn't possibly scrape the shallow end of the gene pool (which also happens to the bottom of the barrel in this case) any harder.

Your leaders aren't even charismatic now.  They're just bloviating blowhards who turn in to toddlers any time they don't get their way.  This shit's not funny any more, and cliched as it might be, I want my country back.  The country we had before Republicans let planes hit the twin towers and used it as an excuse to start gutting our freedoms.  Before fucking morons thought it'd be a good idea to elect a reality TV star to the presidency.


----------



## GhostLatte (Apr 20, 2019)

The American people deserve to view the unredacted version.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 20, 2019)

"I DISLIKE LIBERALS"
yes we are a monolith with all one set of beliefs with no nuance or inner monologe. let me just say i dont agree with republicans on many things but i dont treat them as an all encompassing one set of beliefs that should be disregarded. Thats unhealthy.

As for the folks that keep saying "I want an apology" for what? seriously? Again any person with nuance will tell you that the report brings questions. Even if you are a conservative. Dont believe me? go listen to Judge Napolitano on fox news and take it in slowly.

Again, going by what some "red pilled" youtuber or by what fox news says alone is unhealthy. Go read NPR and Reuters if CNN is something you have a hard time digesting. Ultimately, folks should read the report but i digress most people want to "pwn the libs" instead of having a conversation on this.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Members of the Trump campaign appear to have attempted to conspire with Russia with regard to the 2016 election.





Xzi said:


> Congress got the same redacted report as the public.  It's only today that they've subpoenaed the full, unredacted report, and that's likely to take some time and face resistance from Barr.  I'll meet you in the middle and say that there was no successful collusion according to the report, but nowhere does it say collusion was never attempted, and there's a lot of evidence to the contrary included.


Isn't even attempting a crime, a crime in itself?



Lacius said:


> Barr grossly misrepresented what was in the report, specifically with regard to obstruction.


Shouldn't this person be charged with something? 



cots said:


> A lot of Liberals do exhibit mental thought processes that related to documented illnesses. However, the smart ones just use the label to control the others and get rich via it and rarely live the way they preach. I don't think every Liberal is mentally ill, but a lot of their behavior correlates to things that can be considered under the scope of being mentally ill. Yeah, a prime example are the reporters from CNN who had mental breakdowns on air when their fantasy world was unraveled. I also laughed a lot at that.


Hate to say it again, but dat projection.




Xzi said:


> The country we had before Republicans let planes hit the twin towers


Agree with everything, except this part. You are making it seems like they did it on purpose.




WD_GASTER2 said:


> i digress most people want to "pwn the libs" instead of having a conversation on this.


Unsuccessfully, if I may add.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Agree with everything, except this part. You are making it seems like they did it on purpose.


I'm not suggesting that they conspired to make it happen, only that they ignored pressing intelligence reports leading up to it.  Which they did.


----------



## Likeinside (Apr 20, 2019)

lol


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I didn't want to post anything until I had a chance to read the entire (redacted) report. Some key takeaways, since I've seen some misunderstandings:
> 
> Trump seems to have obstructed justice.
> Whether or not Trump obstructed justice, the report was never going to rule that he did. It would be unfair to accuse a president of a crime if he can't be indicted, since Mueller believes a trial is the way for an accused person to fight an accusation.
> ...


I also suggest reading the report as it will help you, the reader, dispel the delusion that any obstruction of justice took place. Several key points to keep in mind:

In order for obstruction of justice to occur in the first place, there has to be a criminal proceeding or investigation in progress, or at the very least in the foreseeable future. It is unclear whether the activities of the Special Counsel or the F.B.I constitute a criminal proceeding of any kind, no crime was being investigated, both were investigations in search of a crime. This is further laid out in 18 USC Ch.73. It is also unclear whether the report would've resulted in any criminal proceeding, especially since the sitting president cannot be indicted, so the prospect of one is insufficient.
Obstruction of justice requires intent which needs to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. It is far more likely that Trump, being the showman that he is, wanted to put an end to the investigation not because he had something to hide, but because it was bad PR. If he never intended to obstruct justice then he cannot be prosecuted for it. Being the Head of the Executive he had purview over all of the executive branches involved in the investigation and could've terminated it at any point, but allowed it to continue while simultaneously urging officials to wrap it up. This, in and out of itself, does not constitute obstruction.
The president exerted no executive privilege over the investigation or its results, the "redactions" we keep hearing about are mostly limited to the Roger Stone case which is still on-going, making them perfectly understandable. They're not only lawful, they're necessary, by any legal standard.
Mueller lays out the statute specifically to denote that even a failed attempt at obstruction constitutes criminal activity, this much is correct, however it does not bolster the obstruction theory, it weakens it - no requisite intent is established and should any charges be made, they would fall apart under scrutiny.
The investigation established that although the Trump campaign was perfectly happy with the Russian government leaking information that proved beneficial to them, there is no significant evidence to suggest they coordinated with each other at any point in time. The choice quote here is "(...) the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activity". It establishes that there were some contacts and that both sides would've benefitted from Trump being elected, which is not the same thing. Having a mutual interest is not illegal, neither is exchanging words - it's not conspiracy until you actually conspire to commit a crime.
The evidence found by investigators was insufficient to charge Trump or anybody else involved with being an unregistered Russian agent.
The evidence was also not sufficient to charge the campaign with Campaign Finance violations.
The report is an opinion finding, it does not suggest prosecution and it explicitly states that fact. Mueller underlines that while a criminal investigation would undermine the ability of the president to perform his functions, it would not prevent them from suggesting one if it was appropriate to do so. While the sitting president may not be indicted, he could be prosecuted upon the conclusion of his term in office. His immunity concludes with his presidency, and yet no such suggestion is made.
The report does not exonerate Trump as you cannot be exonerated of a crime that was not established. Mueller failed to establish whether any criminal activity took place, thus the president and his campaign are neither guilty nor innocent - there is no crime. Mueller left the determination on whether or not any charges should be pressed to the Attorney General who ultimately decided not to prosecute due to a lack of evidence.
Tl;dr It was all a big waste of time that resulted in 400 pages of stuff we mostly already knew. What I find interesting is that the opposition can simultaneously accuse Trump of being an absolute cretin *and* a criminal mastermind at the helm of an international conspiracy to overthrow the democratic process in the U.S. who seemingly effortlessly eluded investigators from both the F.B.I and the Special Counsel for years. If anything, the report shows that Trump had absolutely no idea how to handle the situation and was determined to either speed up or end the investigation in many interpersonal communications because it was casting a shadow on the legitimacy of his presidency which was personally embarrassing to him. He never usurped any executive power to thwart the investigation and his associates, knowing better than him, refused to follow through with suggestions that could harm him in the long-term. This is a perfectly reasonable finding as Trump was neither a politician nor a legal scholar prior to this debacle. The report is purposefully open-ended and presents just the facts, which makes it very easy to read it one way or the other. Personally, what I can ascribe to malice I usually ascribe to ignorance. I haven't seen any criminal intent, and it appears that the investigators failed to see it as well.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I also suggest reading the report


I was going to respond to your full post, but I told myself earlier I wouldn't respond to anything unnecessarily caddy, since it probably wouldn't result in anything constructive. You already know I read it, and your comment suggests I'm not going to change your mind. The rest of your posts also suggests you perhaps didn't see my previous posts on the subject, because I used to argue some of the same things you did.



KingVamp said:


> Isn't even attempting a crime, a crime in itself?


I would say so, yes. There might also be some overlap between this and the counterintelligence report. For example, if Russia knows you took a meeting with Russia about dirt on Hillary Clinton, but the public doesn't know about it, you're compromised.



KingVamp said:


> Shouldn't this person be charged with something?


Barr didn't break any laws, but it's arguably enough to be fired or impeached. He did almost the same thing back in 1989 with regard to the report about whether or not the FBI could forcibly abduct people from other countries. Instead of releasing the report, he released a "summary of principle conclusions," and he grossly mischaracterized the report.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I was going to respond to your full post, but I told myself earlier I wouldn't respond to anything unnecessarily caddy, since it probably wouldn't result in anything constructive. You already know I read it, and your comment suggests I'm not going to change your mind. The rest of your posts also suggests you perhaps didn't see my previous posts on the subject, because I used to argue some of the same things you did.


That's fair. You had some interesting conclusions based on the text, shame that the Special Counsel or the AG had different ones, I guess. Based on the preponderance of evidence the worst you could accuse Trump of is incompetence, which is something you already accuse him of on the regular, so not much has changed after this bombshell report. "Prosecution of Trump after the end of his term" will go about as smoothly as prosecution of Clinton went, the difference being that the crimes Trump was accused of require intent whereas the charges against Clinton did not, regardless of what Mr.Comey has to say about that.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's fair. You had some interesting conclusions based on the text, shame that the Special Counsel or the AG had different ones, I guess. Based on the preponderance of evidence the worst you could accuse Trump of is incompetence, which is something you already accuse him of on the regular, so not much has changed after this bombshell report. "Prosecution of Trump after the end of his term" will go about as smoothly as prosecution of Clinton went, the difference being that the crimes Trump was accused of require intent whereas the charges against Clinton did not, regardless of what Mr.Comey has to say about that.


Bill Clinton signed a non-prosecution agreement, and he was lucky to get such an offer. Trump might not. In addition, Clinton's alleged crimes also required intent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Bill Clinton signed a non-prosecution agreement, and he was lucky to get such an offer. Trump might not. In addition, Clinton's alleged crimes also required intent.


We're talking about Hillary.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> We're talking about Hillary.


Excuse me. Bill Clinton's alleged crimes are more analogous in my mind.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Excuse me. Bill Clinton's alleged crimes are more analogous in my mind.


Bill Clinton's crimes are more analogous to Epstein's, if anyone's.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Bill Clinton's crimes are more analogous to Epstein, if anyone.


Are you making a joke? I can't tell.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Are you making a joke? I can't tell.


I don't know myself, I guess it depends on how funny ditching your Secret Service escort is when you're on-board of the Lolita Express heading to Pedo Island to visit your good friend, a now-convicted pedophile. Or the other sex scandals Bill Clinton was involved in that probably should've been investigated a little bit more thoroughly. This is an improper venue for that kind of chat though, I'm sure no impropriety took place.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I don't know myself, I guess it depends on how funny ditching your Secret Service escort is when you're on-board of the Lolita Express heading to Pedo Island to visit your good friend, a now-convicted pedophile really is. Or the other sex scandals Bill Clinton was involved in that probably should've been investigated a little bit more thoroughly. This is an improper venue for that kind of chat though, I'm sure no impropriety took place.


We seem to be having two different conversations. I'm clearly talking about Bill Clinton's obstruction of justice, which is analogous to Donald Trump's obstruction of justice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We seem to be having two different conversations. I'm clearly talking about Bill Clinton's obstruction of justice, which is analogous to Donald Trump's obstruction of justice.


I'm just teasing you. To be fair though, the point stands seeing that Trump was never charged with a crime - Bill was, he was simply acquitted by the Senate.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm just teasing you. To be fair though, the point stands seeing that Trump was never charged with a crime - Bill was, he was simply acquitted by the Senate.


Right, impeachment proceedings against Trump haven't started yet. Alternatively, he could be charged when he is no longer President.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Right, impeachment proceedings against Trump haven't started yet. Alternatively, he could be charged when he is no longer President.


I'll be waiting with bated breath at the tail end of 2020 then! 

*EDIT:* To be fair though, there's a good chance we'll both have to wait until at least 2024, at which point I will no longer care either way.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'll be waiting with bated breath at the tail end of 2020 then!
> 
> *EDIT:* To be fair though, there's a good chance we'll both have to wait until at least 2024, at which point I will no longer care either way.


Impeachment proceedings could happen at any time, Trump could resign at any time a la Richard Nixon, and I imagine there's about a 75% chance Trump will lose in 2020. Mueller points out in the report that the statute of limitations for most of the obstruction crimes is 2022, so prosecuting him after losing the 2020 election is a viable option.

For many of Trump's other alleged crimes, such as bank fraud, that statute of limitations is much longer, so he could be prosecuted after 2024 if Trump were to hypothetically win in 2020.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Impeachment proceedings could happen at any time, Trump could resign at any time a la Richard Nixon, and I imagine there's about a 75% chance Trump will lose in 2020. Mueller points out in the report that the statute of limitations for most of the obstruction crimes is 2022, so prosecuting him after losing the 2020 election is a viable option.
> 
> For many of Trump's other alleged crimes, such as bank fraud, that statute of limitations is much longer, so he could be prosecuted after 2024 if Trump were to hypothetically win in 2020.


I'll be sure to archive that estimate for when we have the same conversation we did back in 2016.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'll be sure to archive that estimate for when we have the same conversation we did back in 2016.


I had a pretty good assessment of the odds last time, too.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I had a pretty good assessment of the odds last time, too.


Sure.

Personally, I'm not yet ready to make a definitive call on his chances, everything depends on how the re-election campaign turns out and what the opposition's strategy is going to be, but if I were to make an estimation today, it would be favourable to Trump, by a small margin. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure.
> 
> Personally, I'm not yet ready to make a definitive call on his chances, everything depends on how the re-election campaign turns out and what the opposition's strategy is going to be, but if I were to make an estimation today, it would be favourable to Trump, by a small margin. We'll have to wait and see.


I wouldn't say my call is definitive. A lot can happen between now and the election. We don't even have a Democratic nominee yet.

That being said, Trump barely won the Electoral College in 2016, and he famously lost the popular vote. This was all before we know about Russian meddling, the Mueller report, the child-separation policy, campaign finance violations, bank/insurance fraud, etc. In a recent head-to-head matchup, for example, Joe Biden also beats Trump nationally by six points.

We'll see.


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Apr 20, 2019)

Anyone who actually believes Trump is innocent of obstruction or any other number of crimes, regardless what the report does or does not say, has every single screw in their entire body loose. It takes a real kind of special to just look the other way and pretend he's innocent.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 20, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Impeachment proceedings could happen at any time, Trump could resign at any time a la Richard Nixon, and I imagine there's about a 75% chance Trump will lose in 2020. Mueller points out in the report that the statute of limitations for most of the obstruction crimes is 2022, so prosecuting him after losing the 2020 election is a viable option.
> 
> For many of Trump's other alleged crimes, such as bank fraud, that statute of limitations is much longer, so he could be prosecuted after 2024 if Trump were to hypothetically win in 2020.


Frankly, Barr and the DOJ are just plain wrong on this issue anyway.  The president is not above the law, and nobody should be able to run out the clock on the statute of limitations while supposedly "immune" to prosecution.  Some brilliant legal mind needs to argue that if such immunity actually exists, the statute of limitations for any/all crimes has to be put on pause until the individual is no longer protected by it.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 20, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Frankly, Barr and the DOJ are just plain wrong on this issue anyway.  The president is not above the law, and nobody should be able to run out the clock on the statute of limitations while supposedly "immune" to prosecution.  Some brilliant legal mind needs to argue that if such immunity actually exists, the statute of limitations for any/all crimes has to be put on pause until the individual is no longer protected by it.


I agree with you, but it's not Mueller's place to defy DOJ policy. I think I discussed it previously, but the history of that policy is as interesting as it is flimsy.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 21, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I was going to respond to your full post, but I told myself earlier I wouldn't respond to anything unnecessarily caddy, since it probably wouldn't result in anything constructive. You already know I read it, and your comment suggests I'm not going to change your mind. The rest of your posts also suggests you perhaps didn't see my previous posts on the subject, because I used to argue some of the same things you did.
> 
> 
> I would say so, yes. There might also be some overlap between this and the counterintelligence report. For example, if Russia knows you took a meeting with Russia about dirt on Hillary Clinton, but the public doesn't know about it, you're compromised.
> ...


1.) Remember this whole Investigation was to see if there was any Russia Collusion, which none was established because of lack of evidence. 


2.) So the goal post has been moved to Obstruction of Justice which was not at all what the investigation was about. But it really hard to prove Obstruction to malicious intent when there was no crime established in the first place. 


So now what people are trying to get Trump on is him being ignorant. Trump is an idiot and doesn't know how the legal system works, so he's unaware of what he can't do. His aids refused to do anything to Trump wanted so no Obstruction happened, and the White House cooperated with giving them the documents and anything they needed to conduct the investigation fully without any interference. No obstruction happened so they moved the goal post again to intent, him wanting to obstruct. Even though no obstruction happened, lets get him on wanting for it to happen. Which no malicious intent was established. Be glad that the legal system works on intent or the reasonable person stance, a lot of innocent people will be thrown in jail if not. 




You can argue till the cows come home on Obstruction of Justice, or him teaming up with Russians to get opposition research. But remember the DNC and Hillary Clinton hired a contractor working for the Ukrainian Government, and paid Christopher Steele who working with Russian Officials to get opposition research and dirt on Trump and Manafort. If you want to accept Trump working with Russians to get opposition research as Collusion, then you have to criminally charge Hillary and the DNC for Colluding with Ukraine and Russia. But as some members in this thread has said before, getting opposition research is completely legal, and Trump was not charged at all with working with Russians so this whole point is irrelevant.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So the goal post has been moved to Obstruction of Justice which was not at all what the investigation was about.


You're kidding, right?  The investigation was always about those two very narrow topics.  "Collusion" I should clarify is not a legal term, so the Mueller report actually presents evidence from within the framework of conspiracy and states as much.  So conspiracy is one, and obstruction of justice is the other.  Has always been the other.  The firing of Comey was assumed to be obstruction of justice and certainly looked like it from the outside, a large part of what sparked the creation of the Mueller investigation in the first place.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 21, 2019)

SG854 said:


> 1.) Remember this whole Investigation was to see if there was any Russia Collusion, which none was established because of lack of evidence.
> 
> 
> 2.) So the goal post has been moved to Obstruction of Justice which was not at all what the investigation was about. But it really hard to prove Obstruction to malicious intent when there was no crime established in the first place.
> ...


Mueller was appointed as a direct response to the firing of Comey to, among other things, explicitly investigate obstruction of justice.


----------



## cots (Apr 21, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Hate to say it again, but dat projection.



I'm not the one trying to shift the blame on anyone. However, if I was part of the bandwagon that was blaming Trump of collusion for two years based on some frakkin fantasy I would be guilty of such actions and would apologize. You can claim I did the same thing, but I don't care what you claim as I never took part in the bullshit circus hate jerk Liberal shit show circle. I'm just enjoying being right about something and rightfully so as I've had to put up with 2 years of blatant bullshit. I'm going to enjoy myself for a while. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> I'm just enjoying being right about something and rightfully so as I've had to put up with 2 years of blatant bullshit. I'm going to enjoy myself for a while. Nothing wrong with that.


Wow, so you've been treating the last couple years as though _you_ were the one under investigation?  What a persecution complex.


----------



## cots (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Wow, so you've been treating the last couple years as though _you_ were the one under investigation?  What a persecution complex.



Okay, Mr. I was Wrong and Can't Admit To It.

For two years I've had to put up with the Liberal news sites spewing their hatred and the reaction the conservative sites came up with. I was simply trying to read the news and not some 12 year old girl gossip column. I also watched how it divided people (which by the way is what Liberals want). It was horrible and to find out they were wrong all along and they spent two years churning their hate machine FOR NOTHING makes me smile and you're not going to get to dance around the fact you and the rest of your cronies were wrong as you have a 100% chance of NOT REMOVING MY SMILE. I think I've earned a few weeks of keeping a smile on my face for having to endure the shitshow for 2 years.

If I was the target of the investigation I'd comment on that, but then I don't want to break any forum rules.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> I was simply trying to read the news and not some 12 year old girl gossip column.


This is why you can't be taken seriously.  You belittle any viewpoint or reporting you disagree with, even if it's rooted in fact, and that's not necessary.



cots said:


> I also watched how it divided people (which by the way is what Liberals want).


It ain't liberals tear-gassing asylum seekers at the border, bud.  Or using their faith as a bludgeon to discriminate against others with.



cots said:


> It was horrible and to find out they were wrong all along and they spent two years churning their hate machine FOR NOTHING


Said the guy who still hasn't read the report and refuses to accept anybody else's conclusions on it...

Very Onion-y headline from Business Insider today, but it's rooted in actual polling: 'Mueller report exhonerates Trump, say Americans who did not actually read the Mueller report.'


----------



## cots (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This is why you can't be taken seriously.  You belittle any viewpoint or reporting you disagree with, even if it's rooted in fact, and that's not necessary.



I know damn well what gossip vs actual news it. Did I say I had problems with other news articles on various Liberal sites? No. I'm talking about the trash they tried to pass as news for two years which happened to be WRONG. You can't take me seriously because you don't want to admit to being wrong. What is "rooted in fact"? You mean, you take a small fact, put some spin on it, write up an article so-called news article based on the spin you put on the fact that was only barely related to the issue? That's the type of reporting I've been exposed to for two years.



> It ain't liberals tear-gassing asylum seekers at the border, bud.  Or using their faith as a bludgeon to discriminate against others with.



That has nothing to do with the fact the Liberals were wrong about the collusion and the Liberals in most cases are one of the most discriminating groups in existence.



> Said the guy who still hasn't read the report and refuses to accept anybody else's conclusions on it...



Says the guy who said we need to wait for the report, then we get the report, then doesn't agree with the AGs findings, who then says Congress needs to get the report and then they get the report and then you still don't agree with the findings and now there is yet another condition to be met. You don't know what I've read and haven't read and I'd trust the AG and Congresses findings before I trust some random person on the Internets opinion.

Dude, you were wrong and I'm still smiling.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> I know damn well what gossip vs actual news it. Did I say I had problems with other news articles on various Liberal sites? No. I'm talking about the trash they tried to pass as news for two years which happened to be WRONG.


Why the fuck would you work yourself up over tabloids and shit like that?  Clickbait is used to attract people on both the right and left.  Just ignore it.



cots said:


> That has nothing to do with the fact the Liberals were wrong about the collusion


Repeating myself here, but 'collusion' is not a legal term.  The Mueller report approaches those charges through the framework of conspiracy, and it never says there were no attempts to commit said conspiracy.  We're still missing the counter-intelligence report and other relevant information to this subject.



cots said:


> Says the guy who said we need to wait for the report, then we get the report, then doesn't agree with the AGs findings, who then says Congress needs to get the report and then they get the report and then you still don't agree with the findings and now there is yet another condition to be met.


First of all, that's not the order it happened.  Secondly, I don't see the issue with being patient and waiting for all the information to be made available.  You would rather I be reactionary and jump to conclusions like 24-hour news does?



cots said:


> You don't know what I've read and haven't read and I'd trust the AG and Congresses findings before I trust some random person on the Internets opinion.


It's gonna be hard to trust both of them at the same time, given members of Congress have already stated that Barr lied and mis-characterized the report.  I'm glad you put some stock into the Congressional process though, because they're holding a large-scale meeting Monday to discuss the findings of the Mueller report and where we go from here.  Pelosi was previously against impeachment, but she does seem to be reconsidering now.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> the Liberals in most cases are one of the most discriminating groups in existence.


Is this the group that tries to limit and takeaway rights from minorities, like gay marriage?



cots said:


> Dude, you were wrong and I'm still smiling.



Then what exactly did you read, that makes you so sure that you are right?


----------



## cots (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Why the fuck would you work yourself up over tabloids and shit like that?  Clickbait is used to attract people on both the right and left.  Just ignore it.



I was referring to CNN, ABC News, NBC, CNBC and sometimes BBC. Their so-called news were full of this "collusion" non-sensual tabloid garbage as their main headline (for two years). 



> Repeating myself here, but 'collusion' is not a legal term.  The Mueller report approaches those charges through the framework of conspiracy, and it never says there were no attempts to commit said conspiracy.  We're still missing the counter-intelligence report and other relevant information to this subject.
> 
> First of all, that's not the order it happened.  Secondly, I don't see the issue with being patient and waiting for all the information to be made available.  You would rather I be reactionary and jump to conclusions like 24-hour news does?



The Liberals said "Wait for the report". We get the AG to review the report and he finds no collusion.

The Liberals then change their stance using their "floating standard approach" to say "Let's wait until Congress gets it". They get it and there is still no proof of collusion.

Now we're onto the "next" Liberal condition. Frankly, there's going to be another and another. They can't admit they are at fault. They were wrong and not only wrong about a small thing, but their headlines for two freaking years.

The next Liberal condition also requires the release of personal information including that of information that interferes with national security, because, why the hell not? Screw all that stuff if they can somehow use the report to justify their lies. Even if that condition is met, which I don't think we should risk lives of people to simply try to prove something that has already been debunked there will be "yet another condition" and then "yet another condition".

See the pattern? Lie, deny, repeat. I'm not dumb enough to fall for that crap.



> It's gonna be hard to trust both of them at the same time, given members of Congress have already stated that Barr lied and mis-characterized the report.  I'm glad you put some stock into the Congressional process though, because they're holding a large-scale meeting Monday to discuss the findings of the Mueller report and where we go from here.  Pelosi was previously against impeachment, but she does seem to be reconsidering now.



I think all lying bastard politicians should get the boot would would effectively get rid of ALL OF THEM. I'm not trying to justify Trump's ignorance when it comes to telling the truth, but he's a salesman. Sadly, I didn't expect much more coming from a politician. However, he's the President and until he's not I respect the position and the office. I'm not going to go around saying "Not my president". I've never done such a thing with ANY PRESIDENT. 

None of that changes the fact the Liberals were WRONG and clearly debating with someone who is never wrong is a waste of time. I'll still go to bed smiling. (Try not to edit my posts while I sleep).

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



KingVamp said:


> Is this the group that tries to limit and takeaway rights from minorities, like gay marriage?



Liberals have their own forms of oppression. If you want to find out first hand about all of that simply disagree with them. You don't even have to attack them, just simply have a different viewpoint and watch the oppressive hate machine tear you down. Trading one type of hate for another isn't a solution to any problem. Racism is still racism even if your targets skin color is white. Lies are still lies. Bullying people applies to everyone, not just one particular group of people. Treating one minority group different then another is still preferential treatment. Acceptance isn't limited to only accepting those who agree with you. Kinda not how that works.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> The Liberals said "Wait for the report". We get the AG to review the report and he finds no collusion.


Dude, William Barr wrote a memo last year to the White House, unprompted, stating that his opinion was that the president cannot obstruct justice.  No shit he found "no collusion," which again is just fucking gaslighting because the Mueller report never refers to it as collusion.  We knew his opinion on this way before the Mueller report was released, but that doesn't excuse lying about its contents.  Or, for that matter, sharing the full report with the White House before sharing any portion of it with the public.  He's compromised the independence and impartiality of the DOJ.



cots said:


> I think all lying bastard politicians should get the boot would would effectively get rid of ALL OF THEM. I'm not trying to justify Trump's ignorance when it comes to telling the truth, but he's a salesman. Sadly, I didn't expect much more coming from a politician. However, he's the President and until he's not I respect the position and the office.


If you respect the office, then you should understand the issue here.  It's not about Trump, it's about degrading the integrity of the office itself.  In the eyes of the rest of the world, the office of president is now no better than the unofficial position of town drunk.  It's obviously hurting Americans' trust in our own institutions, as well.



cots said:


> Liberals have their own forms of oppression. If you want to find out first hand about all of that simply disagree with them. You don't even have to attack them, just simply have a different viewpoint and watch the oppressive hate machine tear you down.


Christ, there's that victim complex again.  "Debating or disagreeing with my uninformed opinions = oppression."


----------



## cots (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Christ, there's that victim complex again.  "Debating or disagreeing with my uninformed opinions = oppression."



Disagreeing with me is fine, it's when you try to control me or take away my freedoms or otherwise limit my ability to do something based solely on the way I think that I have a problem with. I have been the victim of racism for the color of my skin and have been hated due to my sexuality and this has been done by the loving, caring and never wrong Liberals.

I don't in any way think I'm being the victim of Liberal abuse due to the fact that you disagree with me nor does your interpretation of the fact that I was inundated with total garbage for two years (fake news about Liberal conspiracies that never came true) mean that I'm playing the victim card. However, if you take Lillith's attempts on this board to have my posts censored, removed or my account banned due to the fact that she disagrees with me I'd call that attempted abuse. Real abuse would be my denial of services, physical attacks and other actions that could cause bodily harm that have been done to me due to the fact that I don't agree with the Liberal left.

A general example (I'm not going to go into detail about my person experiences as I don't want to feel like I'm trying to gain sympathy) would be if you are currently an older white heterosexual male who doesn't agree with the Liberal agenda you are presented with their racism and intolerance.

Have you ever been in a relationship with a jealous individual who wasn't sure about themselves and took their anger out on you, was obsessed with you, tried to tell you how to think, how to act or tried to control you or otherwise restrict your freedoms under the guise of love, but you never liked this person nor wanted them in your life? That basically sums up how I feel about Liberals.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> I have been the victim of racism for the color of my skin and have been hated due to my sexuality and this has been done by the loving, caring and never wrong Liberals.


That being the case, ever consider that perhaps your definition of "liberal" is way off-base?



cots said:


> Have you ever been in a relationship with a jealous individual who wasn't sure about themselves and took their anger out on you, was obsessed with you, tried to tell you how to think, how to act or tried to control you or otherwise restrict your freedoms under the guise of love, but you never liked this person nor wanted them in your life? That basically sums up how I feel about Liberals.


I mean, what _exactly_ are we talking about here?  Because this could potentially be about something like wanting to do meth daily, and a significant other wanting to "limit" that "freedom" for the sake of your health and well-being.  Which absolutely would be an action taken out of love.


----------



## cots (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That being the case, ever consider that perhaps your definition of "liberal" is way off-base?



Nope, this unconditional hatred came from the Liberal voting base.



> I mean, what _exactly_ are we talking about here?  Because this could potentially be about something like wanting to do meth daily, and a significant other wanting to "limit" that "freedom" for the sake of your health and well-being.  Which absolutely would be an action taken out of love.



I wasn't giving an example of a particular person or situation, I was stating how Liberals make me feel in any given situation. Sort of like how they feel when a Bible thumping conservative tries to control every aspect of their lives.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I also suppose "how I feel" is pandering to the Left. Facts are that I've been physically attacked, have had been given reduced services or denied services based on the color of my skin and my sexual gender. Examples would be having my head kicked in, denial of assistance and having my food picked out of the trash and spit in before having it served to me - because I'm a white male. These events have been recent and come from the Liberal voting crowd of coward racists that are in most cases likely to be in the country illegally in my local town.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> Nope, this unconditional hatred came from the Liberal voting base.
> 
> I also suppose "how I feel" is pandering to the Left. Facts are that I've been physically attacked, have had been given reduced services or denied services based on the color of my skin and my sexual gender. Examples would be having my head kicked in, denial of assistance and having my food picked out of the trash and spit in before having it served to me - because I'm a white male. These events have been recent and come from the Liberal voting crowd of coward racists that are in most cases likely to be in the country illegally in my local town.


I mean that's really fucked up and I would never excuse that kind of behavior, but you don't strike me as exactly the most level-headed dude either.  I wonder, if you were being honest with yourself, if you might've had _something_ to do with inciting some of this conflict.

After all, I'm a white male too.  I've been in physical fights, but none of them were over my race or political affiliation.  And certainly nobody has forcibly tried to boot me from the Democratic party in all the years I've been registered with them.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Why the fuck would you work yourself up over tabloids and shit like that?  Clickbait is used to attract people on both the right and left.  Just ignore it.


That's rich coming from the Democrat camp which has been "worked up" about the Trump presidency since Day 0 and continues to elevate the level of outrage and delusion with every passing day, desperately hoping to wake up from a reality that they consider a nightmare. It's gotten so bad that we had to come up with a term for this bizarre form of psychosis, "Trump Derangement Syndrome", in order to somehow classify the otherwise childish outbursts grown-ass adults now engage in. Everyone's affected, from your average Joe to high ranking members of society, people are tripping over themselves to be the bigger buffoon. Say what you will about Trump supporters feeling persecuted against (which, by the way, they are - for whatever reason people think it is socially acceptable to attack and harass someone just because they're wearing a MAGA hat), the Democrats have gone completely bonkers in the last few years and, despite all evidence to the contrary, they still think the sky is falling. It's not falling, and it would do the nation a lot of good to just stop being at each other's throats, focusing instead on policy. The opposition can't continuously move the goalposts when the previous investigation or report didn't lead to a magical impeachment proceeding they dreamed of, at some point you have to stop.


----------



## cots (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I mean that's really fucked up and I would never excuse that kind of behavior, but you don't strike me as exactly the most level-headed dude either.  I wonder, if you were being honest with yourself, if you might've had _something_ to do with inciting some of this conflict.
> 
> After all, I'm a white male too.  I've been in physical fights, but none of them were over my race or political affiliation.  And certainly nobody has forcibly tried to boot me from the Democratic party in all the years I've been registered with them.



What is that saying, don't blame the victim? However, I did do something to provoke each incident. I was born white. The harassment also seems to become more apparent when I wear a t-shirt that simply has an American flag on it. For some reason the local majority finds that offensive. I try not to wear it often.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2019)

cots said:


> What is that saying, don't blame the victim? However, I did do something to provoke each incident. I was born white. The harassment also seems to become more apparent when I wear a t-shirt that simply has an American flag on it. For some reason the local majority finds that offensive. I try not to wear it often.


Best be on the safe side, God knows when a fake Vietnam veteran attacks you with a tribal drum. Water is life, haven't you heard?

/s


----------



## SG854 (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're kidding, right?  The investigation was always about those two very narrow topics.  "Collusion" I should clarify is not a legal term, so the Mueller report actually presents evidence from within the framework of conspiracy and states as much.  So conspiracy is one, and obstruction of justice is the other.  Has always been the other.  The firing of Comey was assumed to be obstruction of justice and certainly looked like it from the outside, a large part of what sparked the creation of the Mueller investigation in the first place.


I forgot to type Main Focus. People were concerned about Russia Collusion. Obstruction was just a side back up thing, to try to get Trump on a long list of attempts in the past of trying to impeach him. It makes people look desperate with all these attempts and especially when no evidence establishes Collusion, making it hard to prove Obstruction on malicious intent when there is no Collusion to cover up in the first place.


It's desperate when I listed some policies of Trump going hard against Russia which contradicts him being a puppet of Putin. It's desperate when I said there were 3 separate investigations, the Mueller investigation and 2 others that found no collusion and you said who the fuck cares. Or high intellectuals like Noam Chomsky or a highly educated historian like Victor Davis or even an Whistle Blower Bill Binney who previously worked for the NSA said this was all non-sense. And people still want more investigations. At some point you have call it quits because it makes you look crazy.




Foxi4 said:


> That's rich coming from the Democrat camp which has been "worked up" about the Trump presidency since Day 0 and continues to elevate the level of outrage and delusion with every passing day, desperately hoping to wake up from a reality that they consider a nightmare. It's gotten so bad that we had to come up with a term for this bizarre form of psychosis, "Trump Derangement Syndrome", in order to somehow classify the otherwise childish outbursts grown-ass adults now engage in. Everyone's affected, from your average Joe to high ranking members of society, people are tripping over themselves to be the bigger buffoon. Say what you will about Trump supporters feeling persecuted against (which, by the way, they are - for whatever reason people think it is socially acceptable to attack and harass someone just because they're wearing a MAGA hat), the Democrats have gone completely bonkers in the last few years and, despite all evidence to the contrary, they still think the sky is falling. It's not falling, and it would do the nation a lot of good to just stop being at each other's throats, focusing instead on policy. The opposition can't continuously move the goalposts when the previous investigation or report didn't lead to a magical impeachment proceeding they dreamed of, at some point you have to stop.


This is the craziest thing I have ever seen in my life. Even people like Bill Maher says who the fuck cares about the Mueller Report, I know Trump colluded. This has gone insane.


These people are convinced that Republicans are the enemy, that it's their duty to the world to save the human species from the Donald Trump. They see themselves as some kind of savior, and a Hero to impeach Trump, and its gone to their heads even to the point of dropping all critical thinking.



All of this is backfiring hard on them. When they call for censorship only on Republicans, but not recognize their own party also has crazies because they keep trying to say well look over there you guys are worse, which ignores their own crazies, they never end up fixing the problems within their own party that's holding them back. And the censorship on the far right is backfiring because that only leaves moderate Republicans, while the far left runs wild, and when people see the 2, they see the Republicans to be the calm rational party, they are pushed away from the "Crazy" Democratic Party. People think, I'd rather be with the Republicans because Democrats are Crazy.


And usually the first people to call for censorship, especially with the Youtube fake News algorithm, are the ones to get censored themselves and are giving up free press power to the corporations. After the fake news filter, left wing activists dropped 63% in views. They are hurting themselves. They think all will be well with censorship everyone will sing Christmas Carols, they get rid of evil racists and republicans, but reality never ends up how they imagine it.


They have gone batshit insane.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's rich coming from the Democrat camp which has been "worked up" about the Trump presidency since Day 0 and continues to elevate the level of outrage and delusion with every passing day, desperately hoping to wake up from a reality that they consider a nightmare. It's gotten so bad that we had to come up with a term for this bizarre form of psychosis, "Trump Derangement Syndrome", in order to somehow classify the otherwise childish outbursts grown-ass adults now engage in. Everyone's affected, from your average Joe to high ranking members of society, people are tripping over themselves to be the bigger buffoon. Say what you will about Trump supporters feeling persecuted against (which, by the way, they are - for whatever reason people think it is socially acceptable to attack and harass someone just because they're wearing a MAGA hat), the Democrats have gone completely bonkers in the last few years and, despite all evidence to the contrary, they still think the sky is falling. It's not falling, and it would do the nation a lot of good to just stop being at each other's throats, focusing instead on policy. The opposition can't continuously move the goalposts when the previous investigation or report didn't lead to a magical impeachment proceeding they dreamed of, at some point you have to stop.


yes because this has been a normal uneventful uncontroversial boring 2 1/2 years. ranging from threats of conflict over twitter to doing a lot of policies which got stopped on the courts for being unconstitutional in the forms they were originally trying to be enforced. Yep, boring every day stuff.



SG854 said:


> They have gone batshit insane.



yes we as a monolith have gone completely crazy. one set of ideals and NPC's. After all that is all we are is it not?

as a last tidbit, here is one of the folks on your camp that understands the importance of what just got dropped:


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's rich coming from the Democrat camp which has been "worked up" about the Trump presidency since Day 0 and continues to elevate the level of outrage and delusion with every passing day, desperately hoping to wake up from a reality that they consider a nightmare. It's gotten so bad that we had to come up with a term for this bizarre form of psychosis, "Trump Derangement Syndrome"


Unfortunately I know it's reality and not a nightmare.  I'm also not under the delusion that Trump can be removed from office before 2020, but that doesn't mean I think both parties should give up on any form of justice and rule of law in this country.

The "TDS" nonsense I've addressed before.  It's not an argument and you're not making any larger point here.  If I wanted to simplify the issue in a similar fashion, then the only reason Trump got elected in the first place was because of Obama derangement syndrome.  Since Trump was the father of the birther conspiracy, and that made him an appealing option to both reactionaries and racists, it logically follows that no Obama presidency = no Trump presidency.

And the shit Republicans flipped out about during Obama's presidency was the color of his suits and his choice of condiments.  Not quite in the same league as conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and nineteen other serious ongoing federal investigations.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> yes because this has been a normal uneventful uncontroversial boring 2 1/2 years. ranging from threats of conflict over twitter to doing a lot of policies which got stopped on the courts for being unconstitutional in the forms they were originally trying to be enforced. Yep, boring every day stuff.


The fact that a court tries to delay the implementation of a policy doesn't mean that it is unconstitutional. Hawaii is one of a number of states that often uses the court system to stifle perfectly constitutional legislation. Sometimes judges push for injunctions on ideological lines, not because of debatable legality of a bill. The travel ban is a good example which ultimately was pushed through in the Supreme Court during Trump v. Hawaii by a 5 to 4 majority. Not that we needed the court to decide upon it - the president has always had purview over immigration policy and there is historical precedent for that being the case. We already have a body responsible for exploring whether certain policy decisions are constitutional or not - the Supreme Court. Judges are citizens too, they're not immune to the Trump Derangement Syndrome. The fact that the judicial branch is trying to usurp power from the legislative branch should be worrying to you, not heartwarming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The travel ban is a good example which ultimately was pushed through in the Supreme Court during Trump v. Hawaii by a 5 to 4 majority.


Oh I remember that one!  The six-month ban, by the end of which Trump promised to have immigration policy "all figured out," right?  And then it expired and nobody in the White House had done anything but pick their nose in that span of time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh I remember that one!  The six-month ban, by the end of which Trump promised to have immigration policy "all figured out," right?  And then it expired and nobody in the White House had done anything but pick their nose in that span of time.


Perhaps the White House would be more effective at implementing policy if deranged Democrats didn't try to stifle it at every turn with underhanded tricks? Who knows, who knows. Maybe Trump should just use the I.R.S. against his political opponents like his predecessor did, that would certainly speed things up.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 21, 2019)

they would be more effective if a lot of their policies held in courts which they havent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 21, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> they would be more effective if a lot of their policies held in courts which they havent.


I guess we'll all have to wait for Term 2: Electric Boogaloo then, won't we?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 21, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Perhaps the White House would be more effective at implementing policy if deranged Democrats didn't try to stifle it at every turn with underhanded tricks? Who knows, who knows. Maybe Trump should just use the I.R.S. against his political opponents like his predecessor did, that would certainly speed things up.


Good leaders don't make excuses for why they're unable to lead.  Obama faced just as much obstruction, if not more so, and never whined about it.  It's below the dignity of the office.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Good leaders don't make excuses for why they're unable to lead.  Obama faced just as much obstruction, if not more so, and never whined about it.  It's below the dignity of the office.


The office has no special kind of dignity, a president is just a guy that people elected to work for them. All politicians are servants, being a president is just a job. The whole veneer of "being presidential" is ridiculous, they're not the aristocracy, they're in a temporary position of power.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The office has no special kind of dignity


Well it certainly doesn't _now. _



Foxi4 said:


> The whole veneer of "being presidential" is ridiculous, they're not the aristocracy, they're in a temporary position of power.


You're right, absolutely ridiculous, the position should go to any random person off the streets with a little name recognition.  I look forward to Snooki being the Republican nominee in 2024.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 22, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> yes we as a monolith have gone completely crazy. one set of ideals and NPC's. After all that is all we are is it not?



Look at the graph below. Notice how there hardly anyone in the Far Right on everything. And there's many on the Far Left of both issues. Theres hardly anyone in bottom right 4th quadrant which is mostly empty. Thats where the alt right is. Economic identitarians.


Many Hillary voters are into identity politics. That's where you'll likely get your Anti White Anti Males racist and sexists. This is also why you hear more news of the Left being crazy then you hear about the right Trump supporters. This is going to hurt them. And look at the alienated Dem Hillary supporters being pushed into Right Wing because of identity politics. So this means its likely the right wing sections on identity issues can be interpreted as they don't care about identity politics at all. The center being I think some identity issues are good but not too much where its crazy. The bottom is identitarians.

The negative thoughts on African Americans is likely for high crime rates among them. Which is likely why a lot of Dems are pushed into those right wing sections and also pushed there for border issues. And which explains why there are Trump supporters that are in the far left Socialist or in left wing economics sections, but are not identitarians. Its because the left is pushed there by crazy anti white male identitarians and are being alienated, so they voted for Trump. Many Bernie Supporters voted for Trump.



This is likely to cost the left the 2020 election. And why the left is seen as crazy. There are people on the left that don't want to vote Bernie because he is a White Male. And identitarianism/TDS, is likely going to be there downfall.


When it comes to economics the Trump supporters is mostly center slightly right, theres a mixture of Economic Socialist Bernie Sanders type, and Right Wing Economic types. There's not many Trump supporters that wants far right economics because of this mix. Dems mostly cluster to the far left. They are mostly uniform when it comes to economics and social issues. And its going to back fire pushing for identitarianism.






https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/political-divisions-in-2016-and-beyond



On Mueller Report
The Democrats controls the House of Representatives. And they have the power to impeach. If they don't want to proceed with impeachment. Then that should be telling of what's in the report. It's the Democrat's outside of the House pushing for impeachment that are the deranged lunatics.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Also the Democrats controls the House of Representatives. And they have the power to impeach. If they don't want to proceed with impeachment. Then that should be telling of what's in the report.


I agree.  The establishment centrist Dems say that the Senate won't convict anyway, which is true, but it's ultimately not about getting a conviction.  It's about standing up for the rule of law and getting all the relevant facts on record, as well as everyone's individual positions on record.  Impeachment would be an opportunity to lay out the case before the American people, and call witnesses who were integral to gathering the facts of the Mueller report.

You misrepresented that graph out of context by the way, the bottom right represents people who are conservative on economic issues and liberal on identity issues.  Libertarians, essentially.  Even still I can't help but laugh at the idea of Trump supporters being represented as "centrists" in any sense of the word.  The 33% that are willing to dismiss toddlers being thrown in detainment camps without proper supervision belong bunched up in the very top right corner.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I agree.  The establishment centrist Dems say that the Senate won't convict anyway, which is true, but it's ultimately not about getting a conviction.  It's about standing up for the rule of law and getting all the relevant facts on record, as well as everyone's individual positions on record.  Impeachment would be an opportunity to lay out the case before the American people, and call witnesses who were integral to gathering the facts of the Mueller report.
> 
> You misrepresented that graph out of context by the way, the bottom right represents people who are conservative on economic issues and liberal on identity issues.  Libertarians, essentially.  Even still I can't help but laugh at the idea of Trump supporters being represented as "centrists" in any sense of the word.  The 33% that are willing to dismiss toddlers being thrown in detainment camps without proper supervision belong bunched up in the very top right corner.


Oh Crap your right. I was trying to type fast I'll correct my post. But when it some to economics Trump supporters they are center slightly more to the Right. While Hillary Voters are very far left.


The graph is most likely based on Identitiy politics. Negative views on Africans is probably because of high crime rates. You can see a lot of Hillary supporters being pushed being pushed far up on this. And likely people up are ones that don't care about identity politics at all. While the center thinks some identity politics is good but not to crazy levels.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well it certainly doesn't _now. _
> 
> You're right, absolutely ridiculous, the position should go to any random person off the streets with a little name recognition.  I look forward to Snooki being the Republican nominee in 2024.


Sure, why not? It certainly used to go to "any random person", that's _sort of the point _of modern democracy. Newsflash, the entire country was founded as a middle finger to monarchy. The whole system was established to seize power from the aristocracy and return it to the people, anyone can run and anyone can be elected, with sufficient support. The U.S.A. had presidents ranging from peanut farmers to reality TV stars, there's nothing out of the ordinary about that.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 22, 2019)

I updated my post to be more clear.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 22, 2019)

I updated my post again. I kind of half assed it the first time around because I was making a quick comment without thinking of explaining it good.


So the Graph shows why there are Trump Supporters that support left wing and even far left economics. Its because those are left wing people that are pushed there by the crazy democratic party and voted for Tump. And Trump is garnering support from Democrats that see their party as crazy. And the way things are going this didn't change at all and has gone even crazier over the years. The Mueller report is going to boost Trump, and economic models predict Trump will win 2020. These are the same models that predicted he'll win 2016 when most Main Stream News outlets polling data said Hillary would win in a landslide.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The office has no special kind of dignity, a president is just a guy that people elected to work for them. All politicians are servants, being a president is just a job. The whole veneer of "being presidential" is ridiculous, they're not the aristocracy, they're in a temporary position of power.


This is where you and I disagree. A certain degree of maturity in such position used to be an expectation. You must be certainly young in life if you think that this is proper way to behave when being in charge and your decision can affect the lives of so many people.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure, why not? It certainly used to go to "any random person", that's _sort of the point _of modern democracy. Newsflash, the entire country was founded as a middle finger to monarchy. The whole system was established to seize power from the aristocracy and return it to the people, anyone can run and anyone can be elected, with sufficient support. The U.S.A. had presidents ranging from peanut farmers to reality TV stars, there's nothing out of the ordinary about that.


Difference is that Jimmy Carter had more experience than "peanut farmer" under his belt by the time he was elected president.  He also certainly wasn't born to wealthy elitists who bought his way to the top for him.

I find it rich discussing "giving the middle finger to monarchy" during a time at which the AG and president are suggesting the office gives him king-like immunity from prosecution.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Difference is that Jimmy Carter had more experience than "peanut farmer" under his belt by the time he was elected president.  He also certainly wasn't born to wealthy elitists who bought his way to the top for him.
> 
> I find it rich discussing "giving the middle finger to monarchy" during a time at which the AG and president are suggesting the office gives him king-like immunity from prosecution.


It's not a suggestion, it's a long-standing principle which is supposed to prevent bad actors from interfering with the functions of the president using trumped-up _(te-he-he)_ charges. It's a surprise to nobody but the Democrats. There are specific circumstances in which the president could be indicted - long story short he would have to be removed from his function first, which isn't going to happen.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's not a suggestion, it's a long-standing principle which is supposed to prevent bad actors from interfering with the functions of the president using trumped-up _(te-he-he)_ charges.


Firstly, this assumes the president is a _functioning _one, which is no longer a given by your low standards for who could and should hold the position.  Secondly, this is bullshit and you know it.  Presidents have always been held to a higher standard, at least until Trump came along.  That's why the precedent was set during the Nixon years that a president can and should be impeached for something as "little" as lying to the American people.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Firstly, this assumes the president is a _functioning _one, which is no longer a given by your low standards for who could and should hold the position.  Secondly, this is bullshit and you know it.  Presidents have always been held to a higher standard, at least until Trump came along.  That's why the precedent was set during the Nixon years that a president can and should be impeached for something as "little" as lying to the American people.


Do it then. Who's stopping you? If the Democrats can convince the rest of Congress and the Senate that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, they should go on ahead. If they can't then they're being crybabies - _and you know it._


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Do it then. Who's stopping you? If the Democrats can convince the rest of Congress and the Senate that Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, they should go on ahead. If they can't then they're being crybabies - _and you know it._


It only takes a simple majority from the House to initiate impeachment proceedings.  If the Republicans in the Senate choose to ignore all the evidence presented in what will become a lengthy event, then they'll only be hurting their own chances for re-election.  So impeachment does seem like a win-win for Dems regardless of what happens.  If they decline to impeach, then they look weak in the eyes of their own base.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> If they can't then they're being crybabies - _and you know it._


You do know that this is a rather immature response right?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> You do know that this is a rather immature response right?


Tit for tat, actually.


Xzi said:


> It only takes a simple majority from the House to initiate impeachment proceedings.  If the Republicans in the Senate choose to ignore all the evidence presented in what will become a lengthy event, then they'll only be hurting their own chances for re-election.  So impeachment does seem like a win-win for Dems regardless of what happens.  If they decline to impeach, then they look weak in the eyes of their own base.


Trust me, the moment they do file articles of impeachment for real, I'll be right there with you holding streamers, blasting off fireworks and throwing confetti around, not because I want Trump impeached but because it isn't going to work and will bolster his re-election chances. Democrats know this, which is why they haven't gone so far just yet.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Trust me, the moment they do file articles of impeachment for real, I'll be right there with you holding streamers, blasting off fireworks and throwing confetti around, not because I want Trump impeached but because it isn't going to work and will bolster his re-election chances. Democrats know this, which is why they haven't gone so far just yet.


His numbers are already down just since the Mueller report was made partially public.  You might be willing to ignore objective evidence as its presented, but that being the case, the Democrats know that you're not the type of voter they can win over regardless. 

There's also no evidence to suggest that impeachment helps the individual being impeached.  Bill Clinton's numbers actually went down after all charges were dismissed.


----------



## barronwaffles (Apr 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> His numbers are already down just since the Mueller report was made partially public.  You might be willing to ignore objective evidence as its presented, but that being the case, the Democrats know that you're not the type of voter they can win over regardless.
> 
> There's also no evidence to suggest that impeachment helps the individual being impeached.  Bill Clinton's numbers actually went down after all charges were dismissed.



Jesus Christ you guys really didn't learn anything from 2016, did you?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2019)

Xzi said:


> His numbers are already down just since the Mueller report was made partially public.  You might be willing to ignore objective evidence as its presented, but that being the case, the Democrats know that you're not the type of voter they can win over regardless.
> 
> There's also no evidence to suggest that impeachment helps the individual being impeached.  Bill Clinton's numbers actually went down after all charges were dismissed.


According to Reuters. Gallup has his numbers consistently around the 40% mark, and his betting odds (which apparently are more accurate than pollsters - who knew?) actually doubled his market value. All jest aside, any results are completely temporary. Welcome to the 24 hour news cycle - the report is going to be old news next week, there will be more things to talk about, no doubt.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Tit for tat, actually.


so what is the value of this in political discussion? or is there just interest in "pwning" the other side?

I think ill see myself out of this thread. Once a debate reaches this sort of mentality, there is little productive discussion to be had.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> Jesus Christ you guys really didn't learn anything from 2016, did you?


Don't nominate Hillary Clinton?



Foxi4 said:


> According to Reuters. Gallup has his numbers consistently around the 40% mark, and his betting odds (which apparently are more accurate than pollsters - who knew?) actually doubled his market value. All jest aside, any results are completely temporary. Welcome to the 24 hour news cycle - the report is going to be old news next week, there will be more things to talk about, no doubt.


No doubt.  As I've said, there are nineteen other ongoing investigations, this is still just the tip of the iceberg.  Republicans will try their best to change the topic, but I don't think most of America will be so easy to forget.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 22, 2019)

WD_GASTER2 said:


> so what is the value of this in political discussion? or is there just interest in "pwning" the other side?
> 
> I think ill see myself out of this thread. Once a debate reaches this sort of mentality, there is little productive discussion to be had.


Oh no, the debate isn't productive not because I'm having a bit of fun and inserting a joke here and there, the debate isn't productive because we're discussing improbable hypotheticals. Here's how I see it - you guys want to land on the sun, I keep telling you that you can't do that as it's a literal ball of hellfire, to which you respond by telling me that you've got it all figured out and you'll fly at night. I treat this chat as entertainment, and so should you - lighten up.



WD_GASTER2 said:


> This is where you and I disagree. A certain degree of maturity in such position used to be an expectation. You must be certainly young in life if you think that this is proper way to behave when being in charge and your decision can affect the lives of so many people.


I'm old enough to know that an election shouldn't be a popularity contest and people should vote for policy, not for the face representing it. I'm also old enough to know that pretending to be nice 24/7 can only take you so far and that fake niceties are not always the best method to push that policy through - sometimes you just need a hammer. Trump is a hammer in search of a nail, that's all I need.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 22, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm old enough to know that an election shouldn't be a popularity contest and people should vote for policy, not for the face representing it.


That is hilarious.  Trump had no policy ideas in 2016 and he still has no policy ideas now.  He is literally nothing but a vapid face used to take all the heat for policies that the neo-cons enact.

_One_ item of legislation has passed in nearly three years of his presidency.  I guess he is too dumb to realize that all his other orders can be undone just as easily as they were done.



Foxi4 said:


> Trump is a hammer in search of a nail, that's all I need.


I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.  He's looking for another illegitimate war to start?


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.  He's looking for another illegitimate war to start?




What illegitimate wars has Trump started?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> That is hilarious.  Trump had no policy ideas in 2016 and he still has no policy ideas now.  He is literally nothing but a vapid face used to take all the heat for policies that the neo-cons enact.
> 
> _One_ item of legislation has passed in nearly three years of his presidency.  I guess he is too dumb to realize that all his other orders can be undone just as easily as they were done.
> 
> ...


I'm happy with the tax cuts, for a start. He's enacting policy that I support, I don't see a cause for this outrage. As for Trump being a warmonger, you can stop now - like it or not, he's responsible for de-escalating the situation in North Korea. Compared to his predecessors he is surprisingly peaceful. I have it on good authority that in the same time frame Obama would've drone-bombed at least five weddings.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> What illegitimate wars has Trump started?


I meant "another" in the sense that Trump is a neo-con just like GWB.  He hasn't started a war himself yet, but he has threatened nuclear war on Twitter (more than once), and he insists on continuing to use US dollars to support the Saudi-led war in Yemen.

In all likelihood though, the war Trump really wants is a war on immigrants.  That's why he's helping to manufacture the crisis at the border by cutting all aid to South American countries while they were already unstable.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I meant "another" in the sense that Trump is a neo-con just like GWB.  He hasn't started a war himself yet, but he has threatened nuclear war on Twitter (more than once), and he insists on continuing to use US dollars to support the Saudi-led war in Yemen.
> 
> In all likelihood though, the war Trump really wants is a war on immigrants.  That's why he's helping to manufacture the crisis at the border by cutting all aid to South American countries while they were already unstable.


Trump is not a neocon. He's barely even a Republican. The man is a real estate developer from New York, he shares nothing with neocons in terms of goals or values. I don't know if you even understand what the term "neo con" means, based on what you're saying.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The man is a real estate developer from New York, he shares nothing with neo cons in terms of goals or values.


He's beholden to his wallet in nearly all matters, and his virtues/opinions are for sale.  That's the epitome of neo-conservatism.  Wallet > party > country.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> He's beholden to his wallet in nearly all matters, and his virtues/opinions are for sale.  That's the epitome of neo-conservatism.  Wallet > party > country.


Talk about overdramatising and demonising the opposition. Very level-headed and reasonable.


----------



## Captain_N (Apr 23, 2019)

there is really no basis to impeach trump. Cant say there is collusion and i dont by the obstruction. Obstruction is the only thing the salty dems got to try on. They tried again with his tax returns but that's a dead end and they know it. They should focus on prepare their candidates to beat trump. They need to stop being salty that their god, Hilary lost. Move on.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Talk about overdramatising and demonising the opposition. Very level-headed and reasonable.


Certainly not all modern Republicans are neocons, and for all intents and purposes, neoliberals are basically the same thing (capitalist gain > human lives).  It's hard to relate to everybody else when you are born rich and never have to put an honest day's work in in your entire life.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Certainly not all modern Republicans are neocons, and for all intents and purposes, neoliberals are basically the same thing (capitalist gain > human lives).  It's hard to relate to everybody else when you are born rich and never have to put an honest day's work in in your entire life.


You would probably garner more support if you didn't characterise your ideological enemies as the Legion of Doom from Super Friends. As much as you'd like to simplify things, life isn't an episode of a saturday morning cartoon. You may find this revelation shocking, but liberals and conservatives want the same thing - to improve the country. They simply gave different ideas on how to get there, which is the crux of the issue. You don't see me walking around saying that the Democratic platform priorities consist of stealing money and killing babies, do you?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You would probably garner more support if you didn't characterise your ideological enemies as the Legion of Doom from Super Friends.


Nah, the Legion of Doom are far more hands-on than neocons and neoliberals would ever be.  



Foxi4 said:


> You may find this revelation shocking, but liberals and conservatives want the same thing - to improve the country.


Once upon a time maybe.  When they're making massive cuts to medicare, social security, infrastructure and etc, it sure doesn't feel as though conservatives are trying to improve the country.  Especially while they simultaneously increase spending elsewhere and end up hiking the national debt up regardless.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> he insists on continuing to use US dollars to support the Saudi-led war in Yemen.



And who got us in _that_ illegitimate war? (among others)


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> And who got us in _that_ illegitimate war? (among others)


The US has supported Saudi Arabia financially and politically for a very long time.  The murder of Jamal Khashoggi should've been a definitive end to that.  Regardless, both Republicans and Democrats agreed to end support for the war in Yemen, which is how the bill made it to Trump's desk in the first place.  He's unilaterally decided that we're going to continue supporting that war.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Once upon a time maybe.  When they're making massive cuts to medicare, social security, infrastructure and etc, it sure doesn't feel as though conservatives are trying to improve the country.  Especially while they simultaneously increase spending elsewhere and end up hiking the national debt up regardless.


I mean, ideally Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would be eliminated altogether, but that's besides the point. You see one way to prosperity, they see another.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The US has supported Saudi Arabia financially and politically for a very long time.  The murder of Jamal Khashoggi should've been a definitive end to that.  Regardless, both Republicans and Democrats agreed to end support for the war in Yemen, which is how the bill made it to Trump's desk in the first place.  He's unilaterally decided that we're going to continue supporting that war.




Nice dodge.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I mean, ideally Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would be eliminated altogether, but that's besides the point. You see one way to prosperity, they see another.


Yes, I see children and veterans starving to death in one of the richest nations on Earth as a problem, they see more money diverted to corporate welfare as a positive thing.  We're just going in circles now.



Hanafuda said:


> Nice dodge.


It wasn't a dodge, we aren't _in_ that war directly.  We only support it via Saudi Arabia.

It's only in the last couple years that the American public at large has seen evidence of what shitty people the Saudi royals are.  Trump is the sole person in government who continues to ignore it because they have money.  Whataboutism doesn't change that fact.


----------



## barronwaffles (Apr 23, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> Nice dodge.



Don't forget - turning Libya into a failed state was actually a good thing.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> Don't forget - turning Libya into a failed state was actually a good thing.


Not putting boots on the ground and getting us involved in another endless war was a good thing.  All we did was help with some drones.  Libya was always going to fail or succeed on its own merits from there, and it's certainly not easy to recover from a dictator figure ruling your country.


----------



## barronwaffles (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not putting boots on the ground and getting us involved in another endless war was a good thing.  All we did was help with some drones.  Libya was always going to fail or succeed on its own merits from there, and it's certainly not easy to recover from a dictator figure ruling your country.



You know that there's actually something incredibly wrong with you, right?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

barronwaffles said:


> You know that there's actually something incredibly wrong with you, right?


Yeah, I don't listen to the essential commands.  

"What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening." - Donald Trump, 2018

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - George Orwell's 1984

Edit: though I will admit I was wrong, I didn't realize we had briefly entered Libya with US troops as part of a larger UN effort.  None the less it was obviously a short commitment on our part, while we remain in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq to this day.

Edit2: I really wish people wouldn't derail threads so hard, though I'm certainly guilty of playing into it.  I'll likely be forced into making a new thread now if there's any more news relevant to the Mueller report.  Too much clutter.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 23, 2019)

Not much more can be said about this report, when sides are literally reading the opposite of what it says.


Foxi4 said:


> I'm happy with the tax cuts, for a start.


 


Foxi4 said:


> I mean, ideally Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security would be eliminated altogether, but that's besides the point. You see one way to prosperity, they see another.


I never realized that you were so... right wing, for the lack of a better term.
I don't see how repeatedly doing trickle down, which simply doesn't work, and cutting programs that people need will really help anyone to prosperity besides the rich.

No, ideally, we would update our programs to be more efficient like every other 1st world country.


----------



## PhantomChu (Apr 23, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> I never realized that you were so... right wing, for the lack of a better term.


Why is it always such a surprise that some people lean more to the right?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Not much more can be said about this report, when sides are literally reading the opposite of what it says.


True, and there's always that segment of the population which will gladly stay ignorant of the report's contents.  That's why I'm glad subpoenas are starting to fly for people mentioned in the Mueller report, though.  Some people need to hear things said on TV before they actually sink in.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Not much more can be said about this report, when sides are literally reading the opposite of what it says.
> 
> I never realized that you were so... right wing, for the lack of a better term.
> I don't see how repeatedly doing trickle down, which simply doesn't work, and cutting programs that people need will really help anyone to prosperity besides the rich.
> ...


"Trickle down" is a silly term invented by the left-wing to make fun of supply-side economic models. The principle works perfectly fine in practice, I don't know why people continuously repeat the myth that they don't.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> "Trickle down" is a silly term invented by the left-wing to make fun of supply-side economic models. The principle works perfectly fine in practice, I don't know why people continuously repeat the myth that they don't.


Holy shit you can't be serious.  Or if you are, I hope you live in Kansas so that you experience the effects of the horseshit economic theory you support first-hand.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Not much more can be said about this report, when sides are literally reading the opposite of what it says.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is one fact in the Mueller Report, No American Charged with Collusion. What people are debating on is Obstruction of Justice.

So what are they going to impeach Trump on? Obstructing a Crime he Never committed? This is getting into desperate territory now. They never cared if he committed a Collusion Crime. They just want to use whatever they can to get him out of office.



They can go try but there is 2 stages. To vote for Impeachment (doesn't mean you'll get rid of Trump yet). And has to go through Votes in the Republican Controlled Senate. Good Luck with that. Pushing for Impeachment especially when Trump didn't Collude is only going to empower Republicans to fight back harder. Clinton got a boost in support when he was impeached, even though he lied. And you can be sure Trump will get a boost with no Collusion Crime charged.


And whats impeachment going to do? What do people wish to accomplish? Trump is almost done, he has a year and a half left. Do people really love Mike Pence that much? Nothing is going to change. Your only going to empower Republicans. People are so confident that they'll beat Trump in 2020 so why not just beat him then?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> So what are they going to impeach Trump on? Obstructing a Crime he Never committed?


Obstruction of justice _is_ a crime, even with no other crime present.  For example, you could talk to/influence a witness of a crime that you had nothing to do with.  That could be classified as either obstruction of justice or witness tampering.  There's no prerequisite that _another_ crime be committed to charge you with either of those things.

It also begs the question: if Trump actually believed he was innocent, why try to interfere with parts of the investigation at all?


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 23, 2019)

crypt1c said:


> Why is it always such a surprise that some people lean more to the right?


I just didn't expect him to be so, specifically. As in, it didn't even crossed my mind.



Foxi4 said:


> "Trickle down" is a silly term invented by the left-wing to make fun of supply-side economic models. The principle works perfectly fine in practice, I don't know why people continuously repeat the myth that they don't.


It is doing so well, that everyone has health coverage. Oh, wait. 



SG854 said:


> What do people wish to accomplish? Trump is almost done, he has a year and a half left.


Everything else aside including your opinion of them being completely off base, justice is what they wish to accomplish.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Obstruction of justice _is_ a crime, even with no other crime present.  For example, you could talk to/influence a witness of a crime that you had nothing to do with.  That could be classified as either obstruction of justice or witness tampering.  There's no prerequisite that _another_ crime be committed to charge you with either of those things.
> 
> It also begs the question: if Trump actually believed he was innocent, why try to interfere with parts of the investigation at all?


To save himself from an investigation he believed should have never taken place that'll interfere and undermine his work running as President. 
You're only looking to seek dirt and not truth. You want anything you can to impeach Trump and when that fails you move onto the next thing until you can find something. You already have your mind made up with out supporting evidence. I highly doubt you would look at this from a Neutral Unbiased Position. 



And why do you care so much about Obstruction of Justice when there was no Collusion Crime Established? It's not like Mueller wasn't able to complete his investigation. The report is out. I'm sure a reasonable person will give leeway. Especially since Obstruction is hard to prove Malicious intent with no Collusion Crime. 


And are you willing to tell me 22 months, a huge team of top prosecutors, FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants couldn't have found enough relevant information because Trump? If there was Collusion then evidence should have been everywhere. Just how much of a smart criminal mastermind to cover up evidence you think a buffoon like Trump is? Are you giving him intelligence credit? You think Trump is smart?




I wouldn't tread on the impeachment territory and should listen to the advice of Bernie Sanders if I were you. You're only going to piss off a lot of conservatives and empower Trump. Every attack on Trump empowers him because he's knows how to fight back. You're going to get Trump re-elected.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> To save himself from an investigation he believed should have never taken place


"He broke the law, but it's okay because he thought the investigation was unfair."  I seriously doubt you'd be this forgiving if Hillary was in this position instead.



SG854 said:


> And why do you care so much about Obstruction of Justice when there was no Collusion Crime Established? It's not like Mueller wasn't able to complete his investigation.


Err...it completed in spite of Trump's efforts, it certainly wasn't helped by them.  Trump tried to have Mueller fired twice.



SG854 said:


> And are you willing to tell me 22 months, a huge team of top prosecutors, FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants couldn't have found enough relevant information because Trump?


I guess not since about an 1/8th of the report is still redacted due to ongoing grand jury investigation(s), and the FBI counter-intelligence report is also missing/not yet complete.



SG854 said:


> I wouldn't tread on the impeachment territory and should listen to the advice of Bernie Sanders if I were you. You're only going to piss off a lot of conservatives and empower Trump. Every attack on Trump empowers him because he's knows how to fight back. You're going to get Trump re-elected.


I agree with Bernie that we can't spend all our time attacking Trump, but he hasn't weighed in on impeachment one way or another yet.  Enforcement of US law and ethics standards is not the same thing as "attacking" Trump.

Edit: correction, Bernie _did _say he's against impeachment during that town hall.


			
				HuffPo said:
			
		

> “If, for the next year, year and a half, going right into the heart of the election, all that Congress is talking about is impeaching Trump … and we’re not talking about health care, we’re not talking about raising the minimum wage to a living wage, we’re not talking about combating climate change … what I worry about is that works to Trump’s advantage.”


And I can understand his point, but that's why I feel we just need to get on with it.  Not talk about it for years and do nothing.  We know it's gonna stall in the Senate regardless, so just get it done.  Then when the findings of more investigations get presented to the public later, it continues to strengthen the Democrats' position while they focus on the issues.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> It is doing so well, that everyone has health coverage. Oh, wait.


We have different measures of success then. To quote a famous Conservative talking point, when it comes to healthcare, it can be affordable, universal or quality. You get to pick two out of those three, but you can't have all three. Universality is not a priority to me, I focus on the other two.

This is going to be a long-winded post, but I like you, so I'll indulge you a bit and everyone will learn something new. The reason why you're so surprised about my views is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding between the left and the right-wing minded people that was never corrected and continues to errode relations between them. Liberals think that conservatives are heartless and conservatives think that liberals are amoral, or at the very least they're very generous with other people's money, especially when they can take it at the point of a gun. Those are both stereotypes, but people fall for them at all times. You have a certain preconceived notion about why I think what I think and you've never bothered to verify it.

The reason I say that ideally Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security should be dismantled is the fact that, ideally, we shouldn't need them. In an ideal society anyone who is capable should be able to find employment and should be able to not only support themselves and their family, but also manage to save up for retirement. Those who are not capable would be supported by the charity of those who are. It's not that we don't care about the poor, we just don't want to "help" them by cutting everyone down to size. I prefer pockets of prosperity to equality in squallor.

This difference in thinking is actually best described with the example of charity. Let's present the two polar opposites, we'll call them the Liberal and the Conservative approach.

The Liberal ideal is that everyone has at least the bare minimum of resources to operate and, if their own capacity to generate resources is insufficient, the state must necessarily step in. That would be considered a moral society where the focus is the outcome. As such, the approach they take is to seize resources from the haves, process them through the government machine and distribute them to the have nots. The means to achieve this are taxation and social programmes. Fair so far?

Conservatives have several problems with the ideal, the approach and the means to achieve the objective. For starters, your average Conservative believes that it is de facto amoral to penalise labour and the success it results in. Additionally, Conservatives believe that any outcome achieved through amoral means is amoral by default. Surprisingly, we have the same goal - prosperity. How do we achieve it then?

The Conservative approach is focused on the individual. Fiscal Conservatives believe that one's success or failure is a result of how they function in a market system. Ideally, individuals are incentivised to achieve success on their own merit and those unable to do so due to life circumstances that are beyond their control must be supported by charity, contributing to which is a duty of every successful individual. What are the means to achieve this without excessive taxation or market manipulation? Incentives, of course.

We circle back to the issue of poverty. The Liberal solution is to take government funding and create a program that supplements the resources available to those who are poor. The Conservative solution is to create an environment where the wealthy will do that naturally and without coercion, for instance via a tax deduction. A deductible is a relatively simple concept - if you donate $100 of your earnings, you don't have to pay additional tax on that part of your income. It's an unwritten understanding between the individual and the state that this money has already been spent towards a charitable cause and the government doesn't get to usurp a slice of it. The result is the same - $100 went to someone in need, but the means to achieve the goal are very different and the efficiency of the process is increased.

The same argument can be had about a number of issues - healthcare, the income tax, pensions, the list is almost endless. I will happily have that discussion with you if you wish. The critical mistake Liberals make when assessing Conservative solutions is the issue of assumed motives. We literally have the same goals, which is what we should focus on. I would like to think that the good solutions are somewhere in the middle, but the left has moved so far to the left in recent history that formerly moderate Democrats now find themselves branded Republicans, which is unfortunate. Ironically, Donald Trump is one such example - until 5 minutes ago in historical terms he would be considered a Liberal, or a Centrist at worst. Right now he's the leader of the Alt Right, or some such nonsense. The political compass is all out of whack in our current climate, so it's much better and more accurate to discuss individual policies and look past party affiliation.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "He broke the law, but it's okay because he thought the investigation was unfair."  I seriously doubt you'd be this forgiving if Hillary was in this position instead.
> 
> 
> Err...it completed in spite of Trump's efforts, it certainly wasn't helped by them.  Trump tried to have Mueller fired twice.
> ...


Bernie Sanders is right. The Democratic platform has become hate Trump. Hate Trump is not a platform. Very little gets talked about Health Care, Taxes, or Climate Change. There is much to be debated on these but it's all ignored because lets hate Trump. So people don't know the best stance or nuance in them, and when its best to apply a certain system depending on circumstance. The 2016 election policies barely got talked about at all. News stations just became Hate Hillary and Hate Trump because scandals gets them more ratings then boring debates.



People don't know what the Republican or Democratic Stance is. Especially since Republicans are mostly moderates slightly right when it comes to economics and Democrats are further left. Most Republicans think Medicare and Social Security is important. Like Bernie said most Americans support these things. Just at different degrees.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> To save himself from an investigation he believed should have never taken place that'll interfere and undermine his work running as President.


In this case, what's to stop anyone under an investigation from using this excuse to mess with the law, innocent or not?


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> In this case, what's to stop anyone under an investigation from using this excuse to mess with the law, innocent or not?


They shouldn't use that as an excuse. I never said Trump should be able to stop the investigation. I'm just giving reasons as to why Trump try to undermine it. Which had nothing to do with covering up evidence of collusion, which is needed for malicious intent. The investigation was still conducted.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> We have different measures of success then. To quote a famous Conservative talking point, when it comes to healthcare, it can be affordable, universal or quality. You get to pick two out of those three, but you can't have all three. Universality is not a priority to me, I focus on the other two.
> 
> This is going to be a long-winded post, but I like you, so I'll indulge you a bit and everyone will learn something new. The reason why you're so surprised about my views is that there is a fundamental misunderstanding between the left and the right-wing minded people that was never corrected and continues to errode relations between them. Liberals think that conservatives are heartless and conservatives think that liberals are amoral, or at the very least they're very generous with somebody else's money, especially when they can take it at the point of a gun. Those are both stereotypes, but people fall for them at all times. You have a certain preconceived notion about why I think what I think and you've never bothered to verify it.
> 
> ...


A big weakness of Conservatives is Facts Over Feelings. Even though facts rather then emotion can be seen as a strength, humans are emotional creatures and respond better to stories that they can relate. So conservatives appear cold and uncaring even if they are not. Lefties are much better a telling stories that connects on a emotional level so they are able to draw huge crowds from that.

If Conservatives want to reach that same audience then they have to reframe things in a way shows they care about people and do things that'll also benefit them. Lefties are like the Caring Mother and Right is the Father that gives tough love but teaches things kids need to walk on their 2 feet alone. Both are needed for balance so things aren't shift to the extremes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Holy shit you can't be serious.  Or if you are, I hope you live in Kansas so that you experience the effects of the horseshit economic theory you support first-hand.


Supply-side economics do precisely what they are meant to do. Following the 1981 Tax Reform the marginal tax rate was decreased from 70% to 50%, but the overall tax receipts increased from 7.94% to 10%. In other words, the government was taxing people less, and yet received more return in taxes, which can only be explained by increased prosperity which propelled people into higher tax brackets due to a more enlivened economy. As a result of the cuts, the top 10% of earners were paying in 57% of the total tax, up from 48%, and the low wage earners contributed 5.7% to the pool as opposed to 7.5%, which means the poorest in society ended up with more money in their pockets. The real GDP growth increased from 2.9% to 3.5% and the inflation fell from 13.5% to a staggering 4.5%, meaning the dollar had significantly more buying power compared to previous years. In addition, unemployment also decreased, by 1.7%, so the tax cuts certainly contributed to an improvement of the job market. You can point out anecdotes all you want, but the Reagan presidency is considered one of the periods of the largest peace-time economic expansion in American history. Seems to be working fine to me, having the numbers right in front of me.



SG854 said:


> A big weakness of Conservatives is Facts Over Feelings. Even though facts rather then emotion can be seen as a strength, humans are emotional creatures and respond better to stories that they can relate. So conservatives appear cold and uncaring even if they are not. Lefties are much better a telling stories that connects on a emotional level so they are able to draw huge crowds from that.
> 
> If Conservatives want to reach that same audience then they have to reframe things in a way shows they care about people and do things that'll also benefit them. Lefties are like the Caring Mother and Right is the Father that gives tough love but teaches things kids need to walk on their 2 feet alone. Both are needed for balance so things aren't shift to the extremes.


Modern conservatives have a hard time selling people on the ideology, which is bizarre because the core concept is "we want to take less of your money", which should be the easiest sell in the world. I feel that many have lost their way and stopped focusing on policy, opting instead to focus on hot button controversies or moralising. I personally don't care what people do in their private lives - what I do care about is allowing people to enjoy the fruits of their labour without undue interference of the state, which isn't too much to ask for.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You can point out anecdotes all you want, but the Reagan presidency is considered one of the periods of the largest peace-time economic expansion in American history. Seems to be working fine to me, having the numbers right in front of me.


Again you can't be serious.  We're still dealing with the fallout from the "greed is good" Reagan years.  Why on Earth do you think we have so many mentally ill people in this country and no sufficient method of treating them?  Most of them end up on the street, assuming good ol' Ronny didn't put them there himself, and some of them are of course veterans.

For that matter, why do you think so much of the country has crumbling buildings/infrastructure which haven't been updated since the late 70s/early 80s?  Trickle down definitely manages to accomplish its goal every time, you're simply not being honest about what that goal is.  Bernie Sanders is honest about it, and that's why his message resonates across the political divide.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Again you can't be serious.  We're still dealing with the fallout from the "greed is good" Reagan years.  Why on Earth do you think we have so many mentally ill people in this country and no sufficient method of treating them?  Most of them end up on the street, assuming good ol' Ronny didn't put them there himself, and some of them are of course veterans.
> 
> For that matter, why do you think so much of the country has crumbling buildings/infrastructure which haven't been updated since the late 70s/early 80s?  Trickle down definitely manages to accomplish its goal every time, you're simply not being honest about what that goal is.  Bernie Sanders is honest about it, and that's why his message resonates across the political divide.


Again, I'll have to disagree on all counts. The reason why medical care is sub par in the public sector is primarily because it's in the public sector and secondarily because of its funding mechanism. Contrary to what most people think, healthcare in the U.S. is as far removed from free market capitalism as humanly possible. It is a constant struggle between the insurance companies which are attempting to cover as little of the costs as possible and the hospitals which ultimately have to cover the costs. The reason why a routine procedure costs thousands of dollars isn't because it actually costs that much to perform, but because the insurance company only covers a percentage of the procedure. The insurance business itself isn't free market either, because the government, in its infinite wisdom, mandated that insurance coverage is not up to the individual, as it should be, but up to the employer. The idea was that via collective bargaining a corporation will be able to negotiate better terms than the individual, but the opposite is true. The system currently in place established a cabal of insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers who do nothing but fix prices all day while employers, doing what employers do, seek cheapest coverage, leaving gaps in the plans. The ultimate result us that if you don't have insurance, you have to pay out the wazoo for basic drugs and procedures and if you are covered, the insurance company has absolutely nothing to lose because it's contracted with a group of employees, not with you, and even though they only cover a fraction of the cost, they can just increase premiums for everybody to make the checkbook look dandy. This is not how any Conservative would want this to work and saying otherwise is disingenuous - the fault is on both sides of the aisle and there is no fixing it, it has to be completely dismantled.

Insurance should be a calculated risk. An individual should be given the option to buy coverage, and providers should compete with each other over the customer by consistently improving their plans. They're the ones who should do the negotiating, not employers. Insurance is effectively gambling - the insurance company makes a bet with you that whatever you would pay for your coverage, they are going to cost you less in the long run, and you can take that bet or you can leave the table. The same kind of competitive environment applies to every area of business. Healthcare doesn't suck because of the hospitals, it doesn't suck because of big pharma, it sucks because of insurance companies which were given the carte blanche to skin you alive without you even knowing that it's happening. And why wouldn't they? They can't lose your custom, you're de facto signed up by the virtue of being employed - they have no reason to care and no reason to give you quality service. That insurance plan your company is paying for? That's paid with *your money*. When the company hired you as an employee, your total cost, including the payroll tax, the insurance and other associated costs was priced in. People *think* that the companies are paying for their insurance, but they are not - you are paying for your insurance, it's just the element of choice that was removed, and thus eliminated any form of healthy free market competition.

As far as infrastructure is concerned, it's funny to hear you say that when cities that were under Democrat rule for decades are literally falling apart. Detroit comes to mind, Cleveland is a close second, and then there's Seattle with its homeless tents and San Francisco with pavements covered in excrement. Democratic mayors are the most effective way to completely obliterate a city, bar none.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Insurance should be a calculated risk. An individual should be given the option to buy coverage, and providers should compete with each other over the customer by consistently improving their plans.


Healthcare coverage should be a right, regardless of healthcare insurance's role (or lack of a role) in a more ideal system.  It's one of those things that's uniquely American, and not in a good way.



Foxi4 said:


> As far as infrastructure is concerned, it's funny to hear you say that when cities that were under Democrat rule for decades are literally falling apart. Detroit comes to mind, Cleaveland is a close second, and then there's Seattle with its homeless tents and San Francisco with pavements covered in excrement. Democratic mayors are the most effective way to completely obliterate a city, bar none.


This is kind of reinforcing my point.  The problem is on a national level.  Obama pushed for more infrastructure spending, but I don't see Trump doing the same.  First cuts to be made in Republican budgets are always to services essential to the middle and working classes.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Healthcare coverage should be a right, regardless of healthcare insurance's role (or lack of a role) in a more ideal system.  It's one of those things that's uniquely American, and not in a good way.


You are not entitled to anyone's labour, not even a doctor's. Any compromise is equivalent to indentured servitude - you have an amendment that prohibits it, and rightfully so.


> This is kind of reinforcing my point.  The problem is on a national level.  Obama pushed for more infrastructure spending, but I don't see Trump doing the same. First cuts to be made in Republican budgets are always to services essential to the middle and working classes.


Obama wasn't exactly an efficient spender, that much is certain given the total cost of his presidency. His stimulus package was a gigantic flop that was costly and contributed very little to actual economic recovery compared to a predicted natural recovery curve. Not all problems can be solved by throwing money at them until it sticks. Infrastructure spending is definitely important, but the gross majority of it should be covered by state governments, not at a federal level. The federal government should be as small and efficient as humanly possible and they should focus on interstate arteries. That's neither here nor there though, this isn't a thread about infrastructure.

*EDIT*: By the way, since you're mentioning Trump, he did propose a new infrastructure plan with spending in excess of a trillion dollars. Unfortunately, he's been preoccupied with proving that he isn't a Russian stooge recently, so it will have to wait.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You are not entitled to anyone's labour, not even a doctor's. Any compromise is equivalent to indentured servitude - you have an amendment that prohibits it, and rightfully so.


Doctors still get paid in countries with guaranteed healthcare, you know.  What a disingenuous argument.



Foxi4 said:


> *EDIT*: By the way, since you're mentioning Trump, he did propose a new infrastructure plan with spending in excess of a trillion dollars. Unfortunately, he's been preoccupied with proving that he isn't a Russian stooge recently, so it will have to wait.


Yet amazingly, tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy didn't have to wait on anything else happening.  I wonder if perhaps it's because that was actually a priority for him, and infrastructure spending isn't.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Doctors still get paid in countries with guaranteed healthcare, you know.  What a disingenuous argument.


That doesn't make it not forced labour. You can't force an individual to provide you with goods or services against their will, this is a non-negotiable position for Conservatives. The Conservative stance on healthcare is to ensure that it is high quality and easily available due to the open and free market system enabling a multitude of providers that can operate freely across state lines, we tackle the affordability part of the equation by ensuring people get to hold on to their earnings by lowering taxes, improving the economy to increase their earnings and incentivising providers to compete and improve their service over time. The affordability issue is, in a sense, separate. Healthcare doesn't have to be universal to be good, we just don't get to implement our vision of it because healthcare bills are designed by committee. A camel, for instance, is a horse designed by committee - not much of a horse, but hey.


> Yet amazingly, tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy didn't have to wait on anything else happening.  I wonder if perhaps it's because that was actually a priority for him, and infrastructure spending isn't.


They also had an immediate effect of, wait for it, increased tax receipts and decreased unemployment. Where have we seen that before? It's almost as if supply-side economics were doing their thing and the results were repeatable.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You can't force an individual to provide you with goods or services against their will, this is a non-negotiable position for Conservatives.


Nobody suggested forcing them at gunpoint, I'm not sure I see your point.  If some doctors want to quit being doctors because coverage is made more widely available, I have no issue with that.  Kinda counter-intuitive to the whole becoming a doctor thing to not care about the well-being of American citizens, though.



Foxi4 said:


> They also had an immediate effect of, wait for it, increased tax receipts and decreased unemployment. Where have we seen that before? It's almost as if supply-side economics were doing their thing and the results were repeatable


The results are indeed repeatable, and we are due for the next economic crash.  The Republican brew of increased spending, large-scale de-regulation, and massive tax cuts for the oligarchs always ends up putting us at the tipping point.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That doesn't make it not forced labour. You can't force an individual to provide you with goods or services against their will, this is a non-negotiable position for Conservatives. The Conservative stance on healthcare is to ensure that it is high quality and easily available due to the open and free market system enabling a multitude of providers that can operate freely across state lines, we tackle the affordability part of the equation by ensuring people get to hold on to their earnings by lowering taxes, improving the economy to increase their earnings and incentivising providers to compete and improve their service over time. The affordability issue is, in a sense, separate. Healthcare doesn't have to be universal to be good, we just don't get to implement our vision of it because healthcare bills are designed by committee. A camel, for instance, is a horse designed by committee - not much of a horse, but hey.
> They also had an immediate effect of, wait for it, increased tax receipts and decreased unemployment. Where have we seen that before? It's almost as if supply-side economics were doing their thing and the results were repeatable.


Tax cuts for the wealthy generally don't help an economy very much, and there hasn't been much of a change in certain trends, like the number of new jobs, since before President Obama left office.

As for healthcare, suggesting that merely cutting taxes will allow healthcare to be affordable is pretty idealistic. Healthcare costs are higher now than before Trump took office. For various reasons, suggesting "free market competition" also doesn't work when they're all coordinating around the same inflated healthcare prices.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> We have different measures of success then. To quote a famous Conservative talking point, when it comes to healthcare, it can be affordable, universal or quality. You get to pick two out of those three, but you can't have all three. Universality is not a priority to me, I focus on the other two.


Other places, with universal healthcare, have clearly strike a better balance than us. Meanwhile, it getting increasingly harder even for the people who are working to afford and obtain it, and yet people still want to cut services without a real alternative. You are right, I don't call that success.



Foxi4 said:


> The reason I say that ideally Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security should be dismantled is the fact that, ideally, we shouldn't need them. In an ideal society anyone who is capable should be able to find employment and should be able to not only support themselves and their family, but also manage to save up for retirement. Those who are not capable would be supported by the charity of those who are. It's not that we don't care about the poor, we just don't want to "help" them by cutting everyone down to size. I prefer pockets of prosperity to equality in squallor.


Even if this ideal society was happening, which is not, technology is more and more removing the need for everyone to work besides busywork. Unless this ideal society doesn't advance either.

So charity isn't "cutting everyone down to size", but better and working services is? Making our services better, like others have done, is surely going make the whole society live in "squallor". As if people aren't facing squallor while working, but that's OK because pockets of people are living in prosperity. Totally moral.



Foxi4 said:


> The Conservative approach is focused on the individual. Fiscal Conservatives believe that one's success or failure is a result of how they function in a market system. Ideally, individuals are incentives to achieve success on their own merit and those unable to do so due to life circumstances that are beyond their control must be supported by charity, contributing to which is a duty of every successful individual. This approach is focused on the individual. What are the means to achieve this without excessive taxation or market manipulation? Incentives, of course.
> 
> We circle back to the issue of poverty. The Liberal solution is to take government funding and create a program that supplements the resources available to those who are poor. The Conservative solution is to create an environment where the wealthy will do that naturally and without coercion, for instance via a tax deduction. A deductible is a relatively simple concept - if you donate $100 of your earnings, you don't have to pay additional tax on that part of your income. It's an unwritten understanding between the individual and the state that this money has already been spent towards a charitable cause and the government doesn't get to usurp a slice of it. The result is the same - $100 went to someone in need, but the means to achieve the goal are very different and the efficiency of the process is increased.


So, charities with "incentives" is moral, but providing direct services for the people that need it isn't? Also, is it moral to cuts and hurt services when charities aren't enough? 

It has clearly been shown that the right programs are much more efficient than any charity. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.



Foxi4 said:


> but the left has moved so far to the left


And what does "far left" mean? Does wanting our programs to be as efficient as other 1st world countries and not just cut them for the sake of it, far left?



Foxi4 said:


> You are not entitled to anyone's labour


I'm curious, what do you think about inheritance?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nobody suggested forcing them at gunpoint, I'm not sure I see your point.  If some doctors want to quit being doctors because coverage is made more widely available, I have no issue with that.  Kinda counter-intuitive to the whole becoming a doctor thing to not care about the well-being of American citizens, though.
> 
> The results are indeed repeatable, and we are due for the next economic crash.  The Republican brew of increased spending, large-scale de-regulation, and massive tax cuts for the oligarchs always ends up putting us at the tipping point.


Using the government *is* force, they're the ones with the biggest guns, the military, the police and the jails. If you take the government and force me to provide you a service for a price that I wouldn't have accepted otherwise, congratulations, you've just arrived at forced labour. "They can quit" is not a reasonable alternative, they shouldn't have to choose between keeping their profession and keeping their dignity. As for the impending market crash, oooh, spooky, the evil crash is coming. Perhaps it has something to do with how the last one was poorly handled. Who knows, right?


Lacius said:


> Tax cuts for the wealthy generally don't help an economy very much, and there hasn't been much of a change in certain trends, like the number of new jobs, since before President Obama left office.
> 
> As for healthcare, suggesting that merely cutting taxes will allow healthcare to be affordable is pretty idealistic. Healthcare costs are higher now than before Trump took office. For various reasons, suggesting "free market competition" also doesn't work when they're all coordinating around the same inflated healthcare prices.


Stop calling it "tax cuts for the wealthy", that's a disingenuous line of arguing your point. The tax cuts lowered taxes across the board. They're also not the only thing I suggested as a solution for the healthcare issue, I explicitly stated that the current system is unfixable and needs to be completely dismantled before we see any measurable change. I've explored this earlier, in detail, and explained precisely why there's a problem with "coordinating providers" - the government has removed competition from the equation through a series of policy prescriptions that are asinine to the average fiscal conservative. There can be no competition when the consumer has no choice.


KingVamp said:


> Other places, with universal healthcare, have clearly strike a better balance than us. Meanwhile, it getting increasingly harder even for the people who are working to afford and obtain it, and yet people still want to cut services without a real alternative. You are right, I don't call that success.


Where are those other places? So far I've lived under two universal healthcare systems, NFZ and NHS, and they both suck. There's tremendous waste, staff works unreasonable hours, everything is rationed and waiting times are so long that you may as well go private, which the doctors themselves will happily suggest.


> Even if this ideal society was happening, which is not, technology is more and more removing the need for everyone to work besides busywork. Unless this ideal society doesn't advance either.


This sounds a lot like the plight of a farmer at the beginning of the industrial era. Mechanisation is putting the poor farmhands out of their jobs, what will they ever do? Here, have a torch, burn a tractor.


> So charity isn't "cutting everyone down to size", but better and working services is? Making our services better, like others have done, is surely going make the whole society live in "squallor". As if people aren't facing squallor while working, but that's OK because pockets of people are living in prosperity. Totally moral.


And fair. You're forgetting about fair, it's also that. You don't get to decide what to do with my money unless I give it to you with consent. You had a whole war about this, remember?


> So, charities with "incentives" is moral, but providing direct services for the people that need it isn't? Also, is moral to cuts and hurt services when charities aren't enough?


It's not "direct help", it's death by a million cuts. The government has no money - in order for them to spend a dollar, they must take two away, from *you*, one to operate and one to give to someone. I'll do what I want with my two dollars, thank you. If the government makes it worth my time to give them two dollars, I can do that too.


> It has clearly been shown that the right programs are much more efficient than any charity. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Time and time again it's been shown that the wealthiest in our society are also the most charitable. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation effectively eradicated Polio in India, and he's still considered "bourgeois". Besides, we're not talking about the complete eradication of any and all programs - individual states can run whatever programs their citizens deem appropriate.


> And what does "far left" mean? Does wanting our programs to be as efficient as other 1st world countries and not just cut them for the sake of it, far left?


If it's at the cost of freedom then yes. Gulags were efficient too.


> I'm curious, what do you think about inheritance?


What I do with my money after I die is my business, if I want to give it to my children then they get 100% of it. If I have failed to put my things in order, my spouse, children or next of kin get it, in that order. The state has stolen enough of my money when I was alive, they don't get to have any more after I die. The last thing I need the state doing is graverobbing.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Using the government *is* force, they're the ones with the biggest guns, the military, the police and the jails. If you take the government and force me to provide you a service for a price that I wouldn't have accepted otherwise, congratulations, you've just arrived at forced labour.


What are you talking about?  The doctors would get paid essentially the same, the insurers would have to be the ones to deal with lower profits in order to compete with universal Medicade coverage.  And you're not going to get me to cry a river over some fucking healthcare insurance CFO's bottom line.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the impending market crash, the fact, oooh, spooky, the evil crash is coming. Perhaps it has something to do with how the last one was poorly handled. Who knows, right?


No, it's entirely new bubbles in entirely new sectors about to pop, being aided along by the Trump administration's de-regulation and moronic use of tariffs.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> What are you talking about?  The doctors would get paid essentially the same, the insurers would have to be the ones to deal with lower profits in order to compete with universal Medicade coverage.  And you're not going to get me to cry a river over some fucking healthcare insurance CFO's bottom line.


...and you get to keep your old doctor too! Yeah, I heard that old whopper before. No, the system is corrupt and needs to be dismantled. You can only patch an old boat so many times before you need a new boat.


> No, it's entirely new bubbles in entirely new sectors about to pop, being aided along by the Trump administration's de-regulation and moronic use of tariffs.


I don't know how to respond to that given the plummeting unemployment rate. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with statistics.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> No, the system is corrupt and needs to be dismantled.


"The system" is composed almost entirely of privatized hospitals and privatized insurance companies as it stands now.  So I suppose in that sense we agree, we need to do something new.



Foxi4 said:


> I don't know how to respond to that given the plummeting unemployment rate. You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with statistics.


And?  I know you know better than to believe debt can't possibly go up simply because unemployment is down.  People who are taking in plenty of money still manage to put themselves in debt all the time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "The system" is composed almost entirely of privatized hospitals and privatized insurance companies as it stands now.  So I suppose in that sense we agree, we need to do something new.
> 
> And?  I know you know better than to believe debt can't possibly go up simply because unemployment is down.  People who are taking in plenty of money still manage to put themselves in debt all the time.


That's a government spending problem, not a taxation problem. The government needs to shrink and be more frugal, I agree that it's a problem.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 23, 2019)

Still don't agree, but that's enough derailing from me.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's a government spending problem, not a taxation problem.  The government needs to shrink and be more frugal, I agree that it's a problem.


"The ridiculous cost of _privatized_ healthcare in this country is the _government's_ problem."

Yeah...no.  People on medicare certainly aren't complaining about it, and they want to make sure that Republicans don't make cuts to it.  Everything else is entirely overpriced now, and monthly premiums for private insurance have continually gotten worse under Trump.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nobody suggested forcing them at gunpoint, I'm not sure I see your point.  If some doctors want to quit being doctors because coverage is made more widely available, I have no issue with that.  Kinda counter-intuitive to the whole becoming a doctor thing to not care about the well-being of American citizens, though.
> 
> 
> The results are indeed repeatable, and we are due for the next economic crash.  The Republican brew of increased spending, large-scale de-regulation, and massive tax cuts for the oligarchs always ends up putting us at the tipping point.


Are you saying people in lower income brackets should pay more taxes, keep less of their money, to pay for crumbling infrastructure?
If you look at polling data across the board most people both republican and democrats think we should tax the lower income brackets less. The difference is in how much they should tax the rich.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Are you saying people in lower income brackets should pay more taxes, keep less of their money, to pay for crumbling infrastructure?


No, I don't know how you would've got that out of what I said.  We have money that could potentially be allocated to infrastructure already, it's simply a matter of making it a priority.  Though yes, the top marginal tax rate also needs to be higher so that we would have more money to allocate to it.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Tax cuts for the wealthy generally don't help an economy very much, and there hasn't been much of a change in certain trends, like the number of new jobs, since before President Obama left office.
> 
> As for healthcare, suggesting that merely cutting taxes will allow healthcare to be affordable is pretty idealistic. Healthcare costs are higher now than before Trump took office. For various reasons, suggesting "free market competition" also doesn't work when they're all coordinating around the same inflated healthcare prices.


How much household income do you need to reach the top 20%, top 5%, and top 1%? And how many people are in those Brackets? How many people are in them that started from the bottom? And Compared to 50 years ago how has this changed in the number of people able to reach the higher brackets?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> "The ridiculous cost of _privatized_ healthcare in this country is the _government's_ problem."
> 
> Yeah...no.  People on medicare certainly aren't complaining about it, and they want to make sure that Republicans don't make cuts to it.  Everything else is entirely overpriced now, and monthly premiums for private insurance have continually gotten worse under Trump.


Except it absolutely is. The government has created this mess by attempting to manipulate free market.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 23, 2019)

Every day on CNN they talk about impeachment.  I've never ever heard the word Obama and impeach in the same sentence.


Xzi said:


> Again you can't be serious.  We're still dealing with the fallout from the "greed is good" Reagan years.  Why on Earth do you think we have so many mentally ill people in this country and no sufficient method of treating them?  Most of them end up on the street, assuming good ol' Ronny didn't put them there himself, and some of them are of course veterans.
> 
> For that matter, why do you think so much of the country has crumbling buildings/infrastructure which haven't been updated since the late 70s/early 80s?  Trickle down definitely manages to accomplish its goal every time, you're simply not being honest about what that goal is.  Bernie Sanders is honest about it, and that's why his message resonates across the political divide.




America is a massive country -- of course it has crumbling infrastructure.  Smaller countries like Japan and Israel are better kept, but look at China who has never adapted real engineering or architectural standards -- or city planning for that matter.  Build a coal factory in the middle of a city?  Sounds good.  highrise buildings toppling over?  Typical day in mainland China.

People forget that mandarin/cantonese are non evolved languages so they haven't aged well over time (largely due to government intervention), and because it's so difficult (10000+ characters), people with any sort of learning disability or mental illness are going to have a bad time.

These are not problems that the United States has.  It's easy to find problems in the US, but comparatively it really gets things right.  Thank goodness for America!


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Fugelmir said:


> Every day on CNN they talk about impeachment.  I've never ever heard the word Obama and impeach in the same sentence.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Comparatively yes. The poor in the country has access to technology the rich wish they had years ago.



People in poor countries that looked at Occupy Wall Street don't understand it because they say why are rich people complaining? Even though we see it here as poor people fighting for justice, people around the world see it as wealthy people whining.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Are you saying people in lower income brackets should pay more taxes, keep less of their money, to pay for crumbling infrastructure?
> If you look at polling data across the board most people both republican and democrats think we should tax the lower income brackets less. The difference is in how much they should tax the rich.


This might be an unpopular opinion among RHINO's/neo-cons, but I don't think the low income bracket should be taxed. Like, at all. That the *one* thing the UK managed to figure out while the U.S. didn't. If someone's not even making minimum wage, or barely skates above it, their bracket for income tax should be zero. I won't go full-on taxation is theft, that's obviously a meme and the country needs to run on something, but a big portion of taxpayers should be exempt from the income tax altogether. In 2016 the bottom 50% of wage earners contributed a *staggering* 3% of total income tax revenue. Y'know what? We can live without that. Forget increasing the minimum wage, abolish the income tax for half of the country - there's your magical wage increase. I'm _sure_ we can live without the pittance they contribute. So yeah, @Xzi and @Lacius, "tax the rich", I suppose. It's not like we're not doing it already, they contribute 97% of income tax revenues anyway. This would boost the economy significantly, and improve the living conditions of the lower and middle class significantly. What we really need however is cuts - the government primarily has a spending problem, not an earning problem.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> This might be an unpopular opinion among RHINO's/neo-cons, but I don't think the low income bracket should be taxed. Like, at all. That the *one* thing the UK managed to figure out while the U.S. didn't. If someone's not even making minimum wage, or barely skates above it, their bracket for income tax should be zero. I won't go full-on taxation is theft, that's obviously a meme and the country needs to run on something, but a big portion of taxpayers should be exempt from the income tax altogether. In 2016 the bottom 50% of wage earners contributed a *staggering* 3% of total income tax revenue. Y'know what? We can live without that. Forget increasing the minimum wage, abolish the income tax for half of the country - there's your magical wage increase. I'm _sure_ we can live without the pittance they contribute. So yeah, @Xzi and @Lacius, "tax the rich", I suppose. It's not like we're not doing it already, they contribute 97% of income tax revenues anyway. This would boost the economy significantly, and improve the living conditions of the lower and middle class significantly. What we really need however is cuts - the government primarily has a spending problem, not an earning problem.



When you say bottom 50% that's mixing Middle Class and Poor. Top 1% doesn't mean only 1% of the Country is in there and Bottom 50% half the country is there. Those are just Quintiles and you need a certain amount of household income to reach them, everybody in the house that works all their wages put together. Could be 5 people, 1 person, 3 people. So the top 1% can have 2%, 5% or 10% of the country in them.



Income Brackets are people at different stages of their lives and is not static. 73% of Americans will be in the top 20% at some point in their lives for at least 1 year. 56% in the top 10%. And 39% in the top 5%. It's constantly shifting up and down. Majority of people in the top 1% will move down to a lower income bracket. Those are just abstract categories which does not look at actual humans and what their stage in life is. Likely a person working for 30+ years and gaining experience is likely to be in a higher bracket then young people barely starting out. The majority of people in the higher brackets first started poor and worked their way up. Most of the country will experience poverty and wealthy wages. The person born rich and stays rich is less true today then it was 100 years ago.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The bottom 50% is not half the country. There are 62 million (Quick Wikipedia Search) of people in the bottom 50% out of the 328,640,315 total. About 19% of the country. The bottom 20% would be considered poor. Middle 60% Middle Class. And Top 20% Wealthy.
> 
> 
> When you say bottom 50% that's mixing Middle Class and Poor. Top 1% doesn't mean only 1% of the Country is in there and Bottom 50% half the country is there. Those are just Quintiles and you need a certain amount of household income to reach them, everybody in the house that works all their wages put together. Could be 5 people, 1 person, 3 people. So the top 1% can have 2%, 5% or 10% of the country in them.
> ...


I obviously didn't mean an exact head count, I meant half of the income tax contributors, which is what the post was about.


----------



## cots (Apr 23, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You misrepresented that graph out of context by the way, the bottom right represents people who are conservative on economic issues and liberal on identity issues.  Libertarians, essentially.  Even still I can't help but laugh at the idea of Trump supporters being represented as "centrists" in any sense of the word.  The 33% that are willing to dismiss toddlers being thrown in detainment camps without proper supervision belong bunched up in the very top right corner.



... and here I thought that willingly ripping babies out of mothers and proceed to grind them into small shreds and dispose of them in the dumpster was worse then housing, providing medical care, looking after and feeding them.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I obviously didn't mean an exact head count, I meant half of the income tax contributors, which is what the post was about.


You know what your almost right you got the close to the percentage. At least in % of house holds. Not necessarily in population size though.
I want to make a correction I used population size when I calculated households, so I mismatched households divided by population. I should of used households for both in my calculation instead.


So 62 million households in bottom 50%. Out of 126.46 million households. I'm matching years to get numbers right.
So dividing that in a calculator is about 49% of households.


I don't want to mislead people so here are where I got my numbers from so they can check themselves and verify.
I used 2013 since that was the year used in the first article for the amount of households in bottom 50%.

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20141017a.htm
https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/



Everything else I typed is right though with the majority of people reaching higher income brackets at some point in their lives.

https://www.aei.org/publication/evi...were-in-the-top-20-for-at-least-a-year/print/



*This is the amount you need to reach the top income brackets from Thomas Sowell's Book Basic Economics. Copy and paste quotes from his book.*




> “As of 2011, a household income of $101,583 was enough to put those who earned it in the top 20 percent of Americans. But a couple earning a little over $50,000 a year each are hardly “the rich.” Even to make the top 5 percent required a household income of just over $186,000—that is, about $93,000 a piece for a working couple. That is a nice income, but rising to that level after working for decades at lower levels is hardly a sign of being rich” Excerpt From: Sowell, Thomas. “Basic Economics.”.




*And income quintiles aren't equal layer representations.*



> “For example, a detailed analysis of U.S. Census data showed that there were 40 million people in the bottom 20 percent of households in 2002 but 69 million people in the top 20 percent of households. Although the unwary might assume that these quintiles represent dividing the country into “five equal layers,” as two well-known economists have misstated it in a popular book, there is nothing equal about those layers. They represent grossly different numbers of people.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Sowell, Thomas. “Basic Economics”.




*Most Rich People don't inherit their wealth nowadays.*



> “Just over one-fifth of the people on the 1982 Forbes list of the wealthiest Americans inherited their wealth. By 2006, however, only two percent of the people on the list had inherited their wealth.”
> 
> Excerpt From: Sowell, Thomas. “Basic Economics"


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> You know what your almost right you got the close to the percentage. At least in % of house holds. Not necessarily in population size though.
> I want to make a correction I used population size when I calculated households, so I mismatched households divided by population. I should of used households for both in my calculation instead.
> 
> 
> ...


Everything you're saying is correct, I know how the tax system works. 

For the sake of transparency, my data is from The Tax Foundation:

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/


----------



## Lacius (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Using the government *is* force, they're the ones with the biggest guns, the military, the police and the jails. If you take the government and force me to provide you a service for a price that I wouldn't have accepted otherwise, congratulations, you've just arrived at forced labour. "They can quit" is not a reasonable alternative, they shouldn't have to choose between keeping their profession and keeping their dignity. As for the impending market crash, oooh, spooky, the evil crash is coming. Perhaps it has something to do with how the last one was poorly handled. Who knows, right?
> Stop calling it "tax cuts for the wealthy", that's a disingenuous line of arguing your point. The tax cuts lowered taxes across the board. They're also not the only thing I suggested as a solution for the healthcare issue, I explicitly stated that the current system is unfixable and needs to be completely dismantled before we see any measurable change. I've explored this earlier, in detail, and explained precisely why there's a problem with "coordinating providers" - the government has removed competition from the equation through a series of policy prescriptions that are asinine to the average fiscal conservative. There can be no competition when the consumer has no choice.
> Where are those other places? So far I've lived under two universal healthcare systems, NFZ and NHS, and they both suck. There's tremendous waste, staff works unreasonable hours, everything is rationed and waiting times are so long that you may as well go private, which the doctors themselves will happily suggest.
> This sounds a lot like the plight of a farmer at the beginning of the industrial era. Mechanisation is putting the poor farmhands out of their jobs, what will they ever do? Here, have a torch, burn a tractor.
> ...


The tax cuts disproportionately affected the wealthy by a mile, so "tax cuts for the wealthy" is an accurate description.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 23, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Everything you're saying is correct, I know how the tax system works.
> 
> For the sake of transparency, my data is from The Tax Foundation:
> 
> https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/


Almost half of households combined pay only 3%. That is a crazy low number. I don't think people actually look at numbers how much is being paid by who and just rag on the Rich because of talking points given to them that sounds good. The fact that the top 1% pays 26.9%, 7 times higher then the bottom 50% combined (about half of households), Do they really have a right to complain about them not paying their fair share. The top 50% is funding the huge majority of social services almost 100%. We are in Debt because the Gov is overspending money we don't have. This is not the rich not paying their fair share problem, its a gov problem.


The problem is you don't need to be a millionaire to reach the top 1%. And struggling small businesses that are not the Big Ultra Rich Corporations are in those upper brackets so they are being targeted as well, and taxes too high will force shut down on them.



The reason why people are fixated on taxing the rich is because they believe they are being cheated with low wages. So they see high taxes as getting that money back from the rich they think that should be theirs to begin with. To redistribute that wealth back down. So until you address this problem and explain to them why the CEO high pay is correct and why they are not actually being cheated out of their labor, then they'll keep on harping about taxing the rich.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 23, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Almost half of households combined pay only 3%. That is a crazy low number. I don't think people actually look at numbers how much is being paid by who and just rag on the Rich because of talking points given to them that sounds good. The fact that the top 1% pays 26.9%, 7 times higher then the bottom 50% combined (about half of households), Do they really have a right to complain about them not paying their fair share. The top 50% is funding the huge majority of social services almost 100%. We are in Debt because the Gov is overspending money we don't have. This is not the rich not paying their fair share problem, its a gov problem.
> 
> 
> The problem is you don't need to be a millionaire to reach the top 1%. And struggling small businesses that are not the Big Ultra Rich Corporations are in those upper brackets so they are being targeted as well, and taxes too high will force shut down on them.
> ...


As far as I'm concerned, the income tax as a concept is terrible - it disincentives labour. It's literally a penalty on your productivity - the more wealth you generate the more the government wants to seize. There was a time in the United States when there was no income tax whatsoever and the federal government functioned perfectly fine. It was introduced as a permanent element of American taxation with the ratification of the 16th Amendment, previously income was only taxed before the Civil War to bolster the war effort (1862, and it was quickly repealed) and once to offset tarrifs (1894, Wilson-Gorman tariff). It was even ruled _unconstitutional_ once, and didn't pop up again until 1913 when the 16th passed. A temporary measure suddenly became a permanent one when tax revenue skyrocketed - the government only grows, it never shrinks. It's the worst kind of taxation that disproportionately affects low wage earners who are already having a hard time making ends meet, that's why I think they should be exempt from it altogether, they don't contribute much and they're already counting every dollar as it is. Ideally it should be eliminated and replaced with a more fair form of taxation, like a federal implementation of a sales tax, or an "Americanised VAT" that would instead tax consumption, not the mere act of daring to work. We should always incentive labour and we're doing the exact opposite.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Except it absolutely is. The government has created this mess by attempting to manipulate free market.


Bullshit.  Healthcare was bankrupting this country when it was entirely "free market" before Obamacare.  Republicans don't have any solutions except, "raise rates!"  It's clear that privatized healthcare has failed us at large.  Just as privatized prisons have.

There are some things that should never be included in the profit motive.  The suits (neocons/neoliberals) always manage to make a bigger mess of things and fuck over the majority of the country while they're at it.  Until a private insurer can manage to become as cost efficient as Medicare is, there's really nothing to debate here.



cots said:


> ... and here I thought that willingly ripping babies out of mothers and proceed to grind them into small shreds and dispose of them in the dumpster was worse then housing, providing medical care, looking after and feeding them.


You voted for a guy who raw-dogs porn stars.  Do you honestly believe he's never had a wife/mistress get an abortion in all his years?  Because if so, I know a Nigerian prince who could use some financial support and is sure to provide a great return on investment for you.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Bullshit.  Healthcare was bankrupting this country when it was entirely "free market" before Obamacare.  Republicans don't have any solutions except, "raise rates!"  It's clear that privatized healthcare has failed us at large.  Just as privatized prisons have.
> 
> There are some things that should never be included in the profit motive.  The suits always manage to make a bigger mess of things and fuck over the majority of the country while they're at it.


I can't think of a time in recent history when healthcare in the United States was actually free market and private unless I go all the way back to witch doctors. There was always some form of government manipulation or coercion because healthcare is considered an essential service. Here's the problem - so is food supply. So is water supply. So is housing, and by extension, media. You tell me where to draw the line and I'll tell you how far into socialism you've gone.

Now, I'm not heartless - I want people to get healthcare, I just have a different opinion on how it should work. I'm not here to convince you this way or another, you seem to be pretty set in your ways. What I am here to do is to demonstrate what I believe in, and there is no better method than to use an analogy.

Here's a good question - if you were ordering food, would you put your employer in charge of the pizza toppings? I certainly wouldn't. There's nothing worse than a pizza for a team of employees - it's a watered down version of the meal. You want to have jalapeños, but Sally from accounting doesn't like spicy food. You want pepperoni, but Sam from marketing is on a diet and won't have greasy food. Then there's Molly, the receptionist - she's sensitive to gluten, so you have to chew through dough that has the consistency of leather. Lastly there's George. You don't even know what department he's from, but you do know that he's a vegan because he won't shut up about it, so I sure hope you like vegan cheese. Enjoy your "pizza". What's the solution? Multiple pizzas, so everyone can choose whatever slice they want. Don't like pizza? Order indian, I don't care, it's your meal. Keep in mind that I wouldn't put my employer in charge of choosing *a pizza*, how do you think I feel about the idea of letting my employer, or the government for that matter, choose my insurance plan or healthcare coverage?

It's really that simple to me. We can argue about the nitty gritty all day, but ultimately it's out of our hands anyways. All we can do is endorse candidates who propose solutions that resonate with us. I'll keep on doing that, you keep doing you.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I can't think of a time in recent history when healthcare in the United States was actually free market and private unless I go all the way back to witch doctors. There was always some form of government manipulation or coercion because healthcare is considered an essential service. Here's the problem - so is food supply. So is water supply. So is housing, and by extension, media. You tell me where to draw the line and I'll tell you how far into socialism you've gone.


I draw the line at taking care of US citizens' basic needs.  Food, water, shelter, healthcare.  These needs haven't changed in thousands of years, so it's not as though capitalists were unaware of them.  Furthermore, this type of forward thinking saves us money in the long run, and turns individuals into more productive members of society.  By depriving people of their needs, all conservatives do is kick the can down the road and ensure we'll have to spend more money to solve the problem later. 



Foxi4 said:


> Here's a good question - if you were ordering food, would you put your employer in charge of the pizza toppings? I certainly wouldn't. There's nothing worse than a pizza for a team of employees - it's a watered down version of the meal. You want to have jalapeños, but Sally from accounting doesn't like spicy food. You want pepperoni, but Sam from marketing is on a diet and won't have greasy food. Then there's Molly, the receptionist - she's sensitive to gluten, so you have to chew through dough that has the consistency of leather. Lastly there's George. You don't even know what department he's from, but you do know that he's a vegan because he won't shut up about it, so I sure hope you like vegan cheese. Enjoy your "pizza". What's the solution? Multiple pizzas, so everyone can choose whatever slice they want. Don't like pizza? Order indian, I don't care, it's your meal.


This makes no sense.  You wouldn't be getting healthcare from your employer under Medicare-for-all.  You'd have guaranteed coverage, and you'd be free to choose different private coverage instead.  The only difference is that private insurers would have to compete with Medicare coverage, so they would no longer be able to charge ridiculous mark-ups on their premiums.  Thus it's a win-win even if you go with private insurance, as your rates would be lower.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I draw the line at taking care of US citizens' basic needs.  Food, water, shelter, healthcare.  These needs haven't changed in thousands of years, so it's not as though capitalists were unaware of them.  Furthermore, this type of forward thinking saves us money in the long run, and turns individuals into more productive members of society.  By depriving people of their needs, all conservatives do is kick the can down the road and ensure we'll have to spend more money to solve the problem later.
> 
> 
> This makes no sense.  You wouldn't be getting healthcare from your employer under Medicare-for-all.  You'd have guaranteed coverage, and you'd be free to choose different private coverage instead.  The only difference is that private insurers would have to compete with Medicare coverage, so they would no longer be able to charge ridiculous mark-ups on their premiums.  Thus it's a win-win even if you go with private insurance, as your rates would be lower.


This is blatantly untrue. You know it, I know it and the senators who endorsed it know it. The Medicare-for-all bill eliminates the private healthcare market in the long run, it does not establish government-funded care, it establishes government-ran care, and there is a world of difference between the two. You would end up with the public sector taking over and the private sector limited to supplementary care for the wealthy, as it functions in every country with universal healthcare on the planet. In fact, this is one of the core components of the proposal, it's the intended result, so if you're saying otherwise, you're either lying, which would imply malice on your part, or you're ignorant, in which case you should read the proposal more carefully. As I said earlier, what I can ascribe to malice I usually ascribe to ignorance instead.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/23/...nsurance-medicare-for-all-bernie-sanders.html

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...ivate-insurance-booker-harris-sanders-voxcare

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/health/what-does-medicare-for-all-mean/index.html

You have to look at the fine print, my friend. The public sector would be responsible for all hospital and doctor visits, *approved Medicare providers* are responsible for supplemental care, such as dental, vision or prescription drugs, as it is with contemporary Medicare, just on a national scale. It effectively eliminates private healthcare, or at the very least makes it completely unsustainable.

As for the guarantee of food, water, shelter and healthcare, we tried that already. It was called the Soviet Union, turns out it ended up killing a bunch of people. To be fair though, in the immortal words of Sen. Sanders from the state of Loonbagia, "bread lines were good because at the end of the line you would get bread". Mmm... Yeah, no thanks. I've had enough of an experience with the state happily guaranteeing things to know a slope when I see one.

*EDIT*: I forgot to mention that your theory on how it would eliminate price fixing is also untrue. It would escalate it, tenfold. Instead of bargaining with insurance companies, hospitals would bargain with the government. Insurance companies are profit-driven, they look out for their bottom line and will always attempt to pay as little as possible, that's the whole reason why they exist. The government has no incentive to save because its pocket are bottomless - the government isn't paying for anything, the taxpayers are paying. In the end the government would be forced to establish government-ran facilities to put a stop to rampant waste and you end up not just with single payer, but also single provider. Naturally this would take many decades to fully unfold, but I digress - hopefully your country never goes down that rabbit hole.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The Medicare-for-all bill eliminates the private healthcare market in the long run, it does not establish government-funded care, it establishes government-ran care, and there is a world of difference between the two. You would end up with the public sector taking over and the private sector limited to supplementary care for the wealth


Sounds even better.  The wealthy get what they want, everybody else gets to pay much lower premiums in the form of a slight tax increase.  Good compromise between having what _nearly every other modern first-world country has_ and still letting the crony capitalist fatcats have their "premium" healthcare option to lord over the masses.



Foxi4 said:


> As for the guarantee of food, water, shelter and healthcare, we tried that already. It was called the Soviet Union, turns out it ended up killing a bunch of people.


Holy fuck, what a crock of shit.  You're seriously trying to go full McCarthy on me?  You never go full McCarthy, bro.  It's 2019, there are modern examples of government-run healthcare that work far better than the US' privatized healthcare system.  More than a few of them.  Call it Socialism all you want, that's at least _somewhat_ closer to to the truth as it's Socialism-inspired, but the right has whined about Socialism for about 80 years now.  The general populace is numb to all this crying wolf.

On shelter, the largest homelessness study conducted so far shows that the US/individual states would actually save money by giving the homeless small homes.  It seems counter-intuitive, but it makes sense when you open your mind to the idea, because you need an address to do many things, including applying for jobs.  Not to mention that many homeless are veterans who want to work, but either their mental state or their circumstances will no longer permit it.  Just takes a little help and support to get them back on their feet, and right now we're simply choosing as a country not to do it.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sounds even better.  The wealthy get what they want, everybody else gets to pay much lower premiums in the form of a slight tax increase.  Good compromise between having what _nearly every other modern first-world country has_ and still letting the crony capitalist fatcats have their "premium" healthcare option to lord over the masses.
> 
> 
> Holy fuck, what a crock of shit.  You're seriously trying to go full McCarthy on me?  You never go full McCarthy, bro.  It's 2019, there are modern examples of government-run healthcare that work far better than the US' privatized healthcare system.  More than a few of them.  Call it Socialism all you want, that's at least _somewhat_ closer to to the truth as it's Socialism-inspired, but the right has whined about Socialism for about 80 years now.  The general populace is numb to all this crying wolf.
> ...


Dude, he keeps saying the U.S. system is not Privatized. And you keep ignoring that. You're not even addressing his point at all. The European system has problems and degraded care. You're comparing their system it to the Expensive U.S. system which has flaws. What he's proposing is a system he thinks is better then U.S. and European. You're not addressing anything at all and are just talking past him.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Sounds even better.  The wealthy get what they want, everybody else gets to pay much lower premiums in the form of a slight tax increase.  Good compromise between having what _nearly every other modern first-world country has_ and still letting the crony capitalist fatcats have their "premium" healthcare option.
> 
> 
> Holy fuck, what a crock of shit.  You're seriously trying to go full McCarthy on me?  You never go full McCarthy, bro.  It's 2019, there are modern examples of government-run healthcare that work far better than the US' privatized healthcare system.  More than a few of them.  Call it Socialism all you want, that's at least _somewhat_ closer to to the truth as it's Socialism-inspired, but the right has whined about Socialism for about 80 years now.  The general populace is numb to all this crying wolf.
> ...


You didn't say "healthcare", you said "food, water, shelter and healthcare", as in all immediate biological needs, the needs that drive us to do just about anything. That's socialism. We can debate on whether healthcare is a right or a privilege, but that's not what you proposed - you proposed that the government builds a bunch of flats to give people "free housing", then starts giving away "free food and drink" and tops it off with "free medical care", for life. How am I supposed to call that, it's either socialism politely or freeloading in more obtuse terminology. I'm not "going McCarthy" on you, I'm making an inference on the basis of your answer, perhaps I inferred wrong, but I don't think I did.

To be fair though, we are going in circles. As I said, I'm not here to change your mind, I simply find it stimulating to discuss these things with someone who is both respectful and diametrically opposed to everything I believe in. It was a nice chat, but I think we're detracting from the topic at hand. We've departed the Mueller investigation and gone into outer space, perhaps we should slow down a little and allow the thread to return to the topic. It's been a pleasure, really.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You didn't say "healthcare", you said "food, water, shelter and healthcare", as in all immediate biological needs, the needs that drive us to do just about anything. That's socialism. We can debate on whether healthcare is a right or a privilege, but that's not what you proposed - you proposed that the government builds a bunch of flats to give people "free housing", then start giving away "free food and drink" and top it off with "free medical care", for life. How am I supposed to call that, it's either socialism politely or freeloading in more obtuse terminology.


...

Water is already freely and publicly available.  Food as well, through soup kitchens and charity/religious efforts.  Is it really so ridiculous to suggest that we should get these people back on their feet so that they can become more self-sufficient?



SG854 said:


> Dude, he keeps saying the U.S. system is not Privatized. And you keep ignoring that.


Because it's largely nonsense.  I encourage you to watch the Adam Ruins Everything episode on this.  Hospitals are not charging reasonable prices to insurance companies, and insurance companies are, at best, a price-fixing scheme themselves.  The entire system is quintessentially capitalist; quintessentially corporate.  Until Obamacare, you couldn't even get insurance if you had asthma or any sort of common preexisting condition.  So these guys were even being picky and choosy about whose money to take.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> ...
> 
> Water is already freely and publicly available.  Food as well, through soup kitchens and charity/religious efforts.  Is it really so ridiculous to suggest that we should get these people back on their feet so that they can become more self-sufficient?


How is water free? Do you not pay a water bill? Unless you're talking about water in a stream somewhere, or rainwater, in which case fair enough, but even those are often regulated. Arizona, Colorado, California and Utah imposed restrictions on rain collection due to the local climate. Yes, the state has usurped the right to take ownership of water that happens to fall from the sky, it's peak clown world.

As for charity efforts and food kitchens, rock on - I support all of that. A big thumbs up to all volunteers and those who donate to those causes. I always prefer to give someone poor something to eat instead of giving them money. It might be my narcissism showing and perhaps I'm infantilising them by assuming that the homeless guy that faintly smells of booze is going to spend the money on, well, booze, but that's how I roll.

Do I want the government doing that? Absolutely not, I want the government to do as little as possible. In my experience, if I want something done slowly, inefficiently and in a costly, convoluted manner, I put the government in charge of it and my wish is granted. When I hear "government-ran soup kitchen" all I can think of is the DMV. "You asked for food, I get that, but you ticked the box for an eye exam, so I guess you're having your eyes checked instead. Also, you're in the wrong queue, this one's for pregnancy tests, you have to take a number and go to the back of the line". Quaint. 

Now, for realises, let's get back to Mueller and his investigation into the involvement of Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale in the 2016 election manipulation.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> ...
> 
> Water is already freely and publicly available.  Food as well, through soup kitchens and charity/religious efforts.  Is it really so ridiculous to suggest that we should get these people back on their feet so that they can become more self-sufficient?
> 
> ...


Air is Free

The Vitamin D from the Sun is Free


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Air is Free


Yes, but the rich disproportionately benefit from it, so I propose air credits.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> How is water free? Do you not pay a water bill?


Do you not have water fountains where you live?  They're in just about every public building.



Foxi4 said:


> As for charity efforts and food kitchens, rock on - I support all of that. A big thumbs up to all volunteers and those who donate to those causes. I always prefer to give someone poor something to eat instead of giving them money. It might be my narcissism showing and perhaps I'm infantilising them by assuming that the homeless guy that faintly smells of booze is going to spend the money on, well, booze, but that's how I roll.
> 
> Do I want the government doing that?  Absolutely not, I want the government to do as little as possible.


There are already state/local government run soup kitchens in place in much of the US.  Which goes back to my point: we already pay for homelessness.  We could be paying less.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Do you not have water fountains where you live?  They're in just about every public building.


God no, that's not a thing in the UK. Even public toilets are scarce! Even if I did, I wouldn't use them - I'm not a germophobe, but I worked in a bar once. I know what goes into those sinks when the lights are out, and that's not coming anywhere near my mouth.


> There are already state/local government run soup kitchens in place in much of the US.


Take a joke, will ya?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> God no, that's not a thing in the UK. Even public toilets are scarce! Even if I did, I wouldn't use them - I'm not a germophobe, but I worked in a bar once - I know what goes into those sinks when the lights are out, and that's not coming anywhere near my mouth.


Lol, true.  Not that the toilets/fountains inside private businesses are always better.  That just makes it all the worse that we force so many homeless into using those options, though.



Foxi4 said:


> Take a joke, will ya?


----------



## SG854 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Because it's largely nonsense.  I encourage you to watch the Adam Ruins Everything episode on this.  Hospitals are not charging reasonable prices to insurance companies, and insurance companies are, at best, a price-fixing scheme themselves.  The entire system is quintessentially capitalist; quintessentially corporate.  Until Obamacare, you couldn't even get insurance if you had asthma or any sort of common preexisting condition.  So these guys were even being picky and choosy about whose money to take.


I question Adam Ruins everything. Have you seen him on the Joe Rogan podcast? The like to dislike ratio is huge. It was the most frustrating podcast I have seen on there. And his video bit about IQ is totally wrong. Intelligence Researcher Dr. Richard Haier completely dismantles the IQ video he made in his book in his book The Neuroscience of Intelligence. http://www.richardhaier.com. I question whether Adam gets his information right. Joe is science science science, and Adam is like well i'm not an expert but I disagree I heard from a friend who is part dolphin and part seahorse said..... It was so frustrating. He doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I question Adam Ruins everything. Have you seen him on the Joe Rogan podcast? The like to dislike ratio is huge. It was the most frustrating podcast I have seen on there. And his video bit about IQ is totally wrong. Intelligence Researcher Dr. Richard Haier completely dismantles the IQ video he made in his book in his book The Neuroscience of Intelligence. http://www.richardhaier.com. I question whether Adam gets his information right. Joe is science science science, and Adam is like well i'm not an expert but I disagree I heard from a friend who is part dolphin and part seahorse said..... It was so frustrating. He doesn't seem like he knows what he's talking about.


I don't really know much of what he's like off the show, and I don't really care.  On the show he has a team of writers and researchers, and his information is always cited.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's really that simple to me. We can argue about the nitty gritty all day, but ultimately it's out of our hands anyways. All we can do is endorse candidates who propose solutions that resonate with us. I'll keep on doing that, you keep doing you.


Respectfully, if you're going to say the solution is to have a good economy and allow competition, you're not proposing a real solution. That's like saying the free market is a solution to consumer discrimination.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Respectfully, if you're going to say the solution is to have a good economy and allow competition, you're not proposing a real solution. That's like saying the free market is a solution to consumer discrimination.


Sure, why not? Let's say that it is, the free market is the solution to most things.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Sure, why not? Let's say that it is, the free market is the solution to most things.


We've seen time and time again that it's not. I've talked about it in other politics-related threads before, but the free market often didn't do much to curb racial discrimination.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We've seen time and time again that it's not. I've talked about it in other politics-related threads before, but the free market often didn't do much to curb racial discrimination.


Yeah, you *said* that it isn't, I have completely different observations. The free market was not the issue for the Civil Rights Movement, the issue was the multitude of laws on the books that either encouraged or outright required establishments to discriminate on the basis of race. The free market didn't do that, Jim Crow Democrats and the Supreme Court did that. In fact, racism or discrimination is counter-intuitive in a free market system, it limits your potential customer base. Segregation happened due to wrong-headed policy, and it persisted because of wrong-headed policy.

https://fee.org/articles/how-legal-activism-stopped-the-market-from-abolishing-segregation/


----------



## Lacius (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, you *said* that it isn't, I have completely different observations. The free market was not the issue for the Civil Rights Movement, the issue was the multitude of laws on the books that either encouraged or outright required establishments to discriminate on the basis of race. The free market didn't do that, Jim Crow Democrats did that. In fact, racism or discrimination is counter-intuitive in a free market system, it limits your potential customer base. Segregation happened due to wrong-headed policy, and it persisted because of wrong-headed policy.
> 
> https://fee.org/articles/how-legal-activism-stopped-the-market-from-abolishing-segregation/


I was referring more to the private sector, since your point was about the free market.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I was referring more to the private sector, since your point was about the free market.


We've been trough this at least three times, on three different occasions, and I already know your opinion. I don't think there's any point doing this song and dance again, in a thread about the Mueller investigation, of all places.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> We've been trough this at least three times, on three different occasions, and I already know your opinion. I don't think there's any point doing this song and dance again, in a thread about the Mueller investigation, of all places.


Sure, that's fine. I was responding to things you said about healthcare, but we can arbitrarily draw the thread-derailing line here.

My point was just that the free market objectively did not solve systemic problems like redlining, for example, and it doesn't solve our healthcare problems.


----------



## leon315 (Apr 24, 2019)

lOl 27 pages of some liberal muricans fighting each other on keyboard about ''free'' medical care 

come to live in EU, we have *free *medical assistance!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

leon315 said:


> lOl 27 pages of some liberal muricans fighting each other on keyboard about ''free'' medical care
> 
> come to live in EU, we have *free *medical assistance!


I'm not a "murican", I'm in Europe, it sucks lol. It's also not "free", I hate when people say that. That's besides the point though.


----------



## Deleted User (Apr 24, 2019)

Free medical care is not free as it is usually paid for by taxpayers. It may be free at the point of delivery, however saying that it's free is misleading.


----------



## leon315 (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not a "murican", I'm in Europe, it sucks lol. It's also not "free", I hate when people say that. That's besides the point though.


if have to buy cold pills then it costs 10€, but last time i injured my feet, from the medical assistance to antibiotics were are all free, literally, NO JOKE.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Jack54782 said:


> Free medical care is not free as it is usually paid for by taxpayers. It may be free at the point of delivery, however saying that it's free is misleading.


It's the medical equivalent of PS+. You get free* games** every month!

*Subscription cost is £49,99 a year
**Good games not guaranteed


leon315 said:


> if have to buy cold pills then it costs 10€, but last time i injured my feet, from the medical assistance to antibiotics were are all free, literally, NO JOKE.


It wasn't free, the cost of your treatment was distributed across all tax paying citizens.

Now, back to Mueller. Anyone else thinks this will boost Trump's re-election chances in 2020? I can't help but think this is free advertising for the president, which I'm more than okay with.


----------



## leon315 (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's the medical equivalent of PS+. You get free* games** every month!
> 
> *Subscription cost is £49,99 a year
> **Good games not guaranteed
> ...


dude, i knew it's on traxpayers' shoulders, but just look at those muricans: certainly sure they have to pay tax from wages and still have to pay medical insurance to access *basic *medical assistance, then you think how great EU is.

Poland is all about political, since your country is not run by communists anymore, things will start to change


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

leon315 said:


> dude, i knew it's on traxpayers' shoulders, but just look at those muricans: certainly sure they have to pay tax from wages and still have to pay medical insurance to access *basic *medical assistance, then you think how great EU is.
> 
> Poland is all about political, since your country is not run by communists anymore, things will start to change


The Polish healthcare system is an absolute mess. It was a mess before the communists left and it continues to be a joke after they left. It's the legacy of the Polish People's Republic that should be dismantled, broken up and privatised. I'm no fan of the healthcare systems present in the EU - they're inefficient and put undue burden on tax payers. This isn't a thread about healthcare though, so let's stick to the topic - healthcare in the EU has little to do with President Trump.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 24, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We've seen time and time again that it's not. I've talked about it in other politics-related threads before, but the free market often didn't do much to curb racial discrimination.


It did in Apartheid Africa. With an openly racist government, with White Supremacy reining high, that denied blacks basic human rights. And it was illegal to hire blacks in certain occupations. Yet blacks workers outnumbers white workers.


It did in 1948 where Black Unemployment Rate was the same as White unemployment rate, during a time before the Civil Rights movement and during Jim Crow. Yet Black unemployment is higher then whites today in a less racist time, unless people would want to argue that Blacks had more opportunity during the racist Pre Civil Rights. These were times when the minimum wage law meant nothing because of high inflation, so the minimum wage laws at the time had no effect and it was like there was no minimum wage in effect at all. So it wasn't minimum wage helping them out. A Employer that needs workers will put his racism aside to hire Blacks because money is more important then his Racist beliefs. If a Black is a good worker generating lots of money for them, then they wont miss this opportunity.



The segregation of Blacks on buses was a government problem not a free market problem. Private owners of street cars, buses, and railroad companies in the South lobbied hard against Jim Crow laws when they were being written, and challenged them in court after they were passed, and refused to listen to the laws. They resisted so hard that company employees were starting to be arrested for not enforcing these laws and a president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply. Some of these white company business owner didn't do this because they cared about civil rights, they did it because they were loosing money from their black customers. The segregation and not serving blacks was because government intervened in the free market, telling people who they can and can't serve.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Foxi4 said:


> Now, back to Mueller. Anyone else thinks this will boost Trump's re-election chances in 2020? I can't help but think this is free advertising for the president, which I'm more than okay with.


This is what I was saying, Noam Chomsky was saying that this will boost Trump. The shot themselves in the foot for pushing this without any evidence at all for two years pretending there was all this evidence of collusion. He will use this to fight back.


Trump knows how to fight back. When Hillary attacked for his grab em' by the P**sy comment this empowered him rather then hurt him. He held a surprise event with Bill Clintons accusers and saying look at the people Hillary is tried to silence. Look at what the Clintons did to these women, for me it was just a comment, but I never did anything like this, they did action. And the Women said they support Trump and that actions speak louder then words. That shut Hillary Clinton up right away and any hurtful impact to his election the Grab Em' by the P**sy comment would have had.


He knows how to fight back. And he waits till they strike first, he hardly strikes first, so it gives him more leeway to act like he does because he's responding is self defense.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 24, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It did in Apartheid Africa. With an openly racist government, with White Supremacy reining high, that denied blacks basic human rights. And it was illegal to hire blacks in certain occupations. Yet blacks workers outnumbers white workers.
> 
> 
> It did in 1948 where Black Unemployment Rate was the same as White unemployment rate, during a time before the Civil Rights movement and during Jim Crow. Yet Black unemployment is higher then whites today in a less racist time, unless people would want to argue that Blacks had more opportunity during the racist Pre Civil Rights. These were times when the minimum wage law meant nothing because of high inflation, so the minimum wage laws at the time had no effect and it was like there was no minimum wage in effect at all. So it wasn't minimum wage helping them out. A Employer that needs workers will put his racism aside to hire Blacks because money is more important then his Racist beliefs. If a Black is a good worker generating lots of money for them, then they wont miss this opportunity.
> ...



The bus boycotts are a great example of when it does work, but that doesn't mean it always works or even largely works.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

leon315 said:


> dude, i knew it's on traxpayers' shoulders, but just look at those muricans: certainly sure they have to pay tax from wages and still have to pay medical insurance to access *basic *medical assistance, then you think how great EU is.


Even if it was slightly rushed and not thorough, I'd gladly take what healthcare the EU has now over the potential to go in debt _for life_ over one serious injury or illness.  In that sense, America doesn't even really have a healthcare system, it's more of a system of exploitation.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 24, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Even if it was slightly rushed and not thorough, I'd gladly take what healthcare the EU has now over the potential to go in debt _for life_ over one serious injury or illness.  In that sense, America doesn't even really have a healthcare system, it's more of a system of exploitation.


It's almost as if personal responsibility and life success had something to do with each other.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's almost as if personal responsibility and life success had something to do with each other.


Are you suggesting that it's necessarily the fault of the individual if he or she cannot afford healthcare?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 24, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's almost as if personal responsibility and life success had something to do with each other.


_Almost as if.  _And then you remember that the current president got there by being born rich and failing his way to the top.  There are no "temporarily embarassed millionaires," only rubes who don't recognize the degree to which the system is rigged.

I should note that this is by no means a complaint levied on my _own_ behalf.  I was born to a middle class family that has very slowly but surely worked its way to upper-middle class.  The vast majority in America don't have the support and advantages that I did, though.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Are you suggesting that it's necessarily the fault of the individual if he or she cannot afford healthcare?


As I said earlier in the thread, health insurance is a lot like gambling. So is most of life. You can take the chance and not buy life insurance when you're young, spry and your rates are low, and you may end up never needing it. You can be cautious and buy health insurance, perhaps you'll need coverage in the future. Life is all about chance, expecting others, or the system, to account for every possibility is just silly. I might lose everything I own to an electrical fire when I'm out at work for all I know, but I don't expect the state to foot the bill. The state, or your neighbours, the tax payers, are not responsible for your well-being - you are, and even then, the wheel of fortune turns in unpredictable ways.


Xzi said:


> _Almost as if.  _And then you remember that the current president got there by being born rich and failing his way to the top.  There are no "temporarily embarassed millionaires," only rubes who don't recognize the degree to which the system is rigged.
> 
> I should note that this is by no means a complaint levied on my _own_ behalf.  I was born to a middle class family that has very slowly but surely worked its way to upper-middle class.  The vast majority in America don't have the support and advantages that I did, though.


Finally! Something about Donald Trump! The Trump Organisation is an umbrella corporation with 515 subsidiaries, he was on charge of more companies which were eventually sold off. On the flip side, 9 of his companies either failed or went bankrupt. On average, 90% of start-ups fail within the first few years of operation. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a 98.3% success rate so far. Pretty good odds, if you ask me - I don't see the fumbling you mentioned.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Finally! Something about Donald Trump! The Trump Organisation is an umbrella corporation with 515 subsidiaries, he was on charge of more companies which were eventually sold off. On the flip side, 9 of his companies either failed or went bankrupt. On average, 90% of start-ups fail within the first few years of operation. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a 98.3% success rate so far. Pretty good odds, if you ask me - I don't see the fumbling you mentioned.


He would've been entirely bankrupt roughly three times over if not for his father constantly bailing him out.  And then later when he made a habit of refusing to repay loans to US banks, they stopped lending to him altogether.  He's been delinquent or failed to make payments several times with Deutche Bank as well, which makes you question why they would continue lending to him at all.

He managed to bankrupt multiple _casinos_, tried and failed to sell steaks at the _Sharper Image_, and has had his "college" and his "charity" shut down, both for being fraudulent.

Then there's the issue of him stiffing his workers and contractors near-constantly, as has been reported about through the years time and time again.

It all just loops back to the issue I spoke about earlier: neocon/neoliberal elitists could never understand how the rest of us live.  They don't operate under the same justice system that we do.  And because they never see any consequences for stupid behavior, they remain stupid.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> As I said earlier in the thread, health insurance is a lot like gambling. So is most of life. You can take the chance and not buy life insurance when you're young, spry and your rates are low, and you may end up never needing it. You can be cautious and buy health insurance, perhaps you'll need coverage in the future. Life is all about chance, expecting others, or the system, to account for every possibility is just silly. I might lose everything I own to an electrical fire when I'm out at work for all I know, but I don't expect the state to foot the bill. The state, or your neighbours, the tax payers, are not responsible for your well-being - you are, and even then, the wheel of fortune turns in unpredictable ways.
> Finally! Something about Donald Trump! The Trump Organisation is an umbrella corporation with 515 subsidiaries, he was on charge of more companies which were eventually sold off. On the flip side, 9 of his companies either failed or went bankrupt. On average, 90% of start-ups fail within the first few years of operation. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has a 98.3% success rate so far. Pretty good odds, if you ask me - I don't see the fumbling you mentioned.


Not having homeowners insurance is a mistake. Not being able to afford health insurance is symptomatic of a systemic problem that needs to be corrected. In addition, homeownership is a choice. Whether or not you have to deal with your health is not a choice.

Your false analogies aside, I don't want to live in a country where people are dying because systemic problems make it so they're are unable to afford necessary care.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Not having homeowners insurance is a mistake. Not being able to afford health insurance is symptomatic of a systemic problem that needs to be corrected. In addition, homeownership is a choice. Whether or not you have to deal with your health is not a choice.
> 
> Your false analogies aside, I don't want to live in a country where people are dying because systemic problems make it so they're are unable to afford necessary care.


Not having insurance, home owner's or health, is a calculated choice which may or may not have consequences, like every decision you make in life. It's a matter of perspective.


Xzi said:


> He would've been entirely bankrupt roughly three times over if not for his father constantly bailing him out.  And then later when he made a habit of refusing to repay loans to US banks, they stopped lending to him altogether.  He's been delinquent or failed to make payments several times with Deutche Bank as well, which makes you question why they would continue lending to him at all.
> 
> He managed to bankrupt multiple _casinos_, tried and failed to sell steaks at the _Sharper Image_, and has had his "college" and his "charity" shut down, both for being fraudulent.
> 
> ...


They operate in the exact same system you do, they just happen to have money.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Not having insurance, home owner's or health, is a calculated choice which may or may not have consequences, like every decision you make in life. It's a matter of perspective.
> They operate in the exact same system you do, they just happen to have money.


For a lot of people, it's not a choice. That's the problem.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> For a lot of people, it's not a choice. That's the problem.


You're missing the point. It's not my fault that it isn't. It's not your fault either. It's nobody's fault. We've been through this, that's why I told you there's no point in discussing it again earlier. You take the position of protectionist Robin Hoodism and elect to allocate other people's money towards helping those who had bad luck in the game of life, I on the other hand believe that people should be left to their own devices and if they want to contribute to the unfortunate, they should have ample opportunity to do so without being burdened by the state for their contribution. These are two diametrically opposed positions that cannot be reconciled, it's an ideological difference, and no amount of evidence, pros, cons or discussion can sway either of us one way or the other, making the "debate" infertile and silly.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You're missing the point. It's not my fault that it isn't. It's not your fault either. It's nobody's fault.


Objectively, it's society's fault.



Foxi4 said:


> We've been through this, that's why I told you there's no point in discussing it again earlier. You take the position of protectionist Robin Hoodism and elect to allocate other people's money towards helping those who had bad luck in the game of life, I on the other hand believe that people should be left to their own devices and if they want to contribute to the unfortunate, they should have ample opportunity to do so without being burdened by the state for their contribution. These are two diametrically opposed positions that cannot be reconciled, it's an ideological difference, and no amount of evidence, pros, cons or discussion can sway either of us one way or the other, making the "debate" infertile and silly.


If you're content with living in a world where people die because they can't afford health insurance and otherwise would have lived if it weren't solely for that fact, that's your prerogative. Personally, I'm not okay with that for various reasons.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Objectively, it's society's fault.
> 
> If you're content with living in a world where people die because they can't afford health insurance and otherwise would have lived if it weren't solely for that fact, that's your prerogative. Personally, I'm not okay with that for various reasons.


People die all the time, Lacius - I can't save everyone. I would like to, but I can't. What I can do is look after the people I'm responsible for, that's my prerogative. Nothing more, nothing less. My objective in life is to maximise the flourishing of myself and my loved ones, this objective necessitates that I look at my bottom line first and foremost. If I have some excess, I will share it, but on my own terms.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Apr 25, 2019)

i could see maybe healthcare on a state by state basis  where taxes collected by that state go to free healthcare for all,  you will soon come to the realisation that its exactly the same as car insurance, if you let someone sign up AFTER they crash their care your effectively going to be bled dry with nobody paying in, or you will be forced to take more and more money from those who are paying till you get to the point where nobody wants insurance as it would be cheaper to just buy a new car than pay for 9000 other people to get free repairs

if people just simply "tax" themselves at rate they want the government to tax everyone and put the money away in a savings account you will soon have enough savings to afford health insurance if you want it, or you could use that money elsewhere.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> i could see maybe healthcare on a state by state basis  where taxes collected by that state go to free healthcare for all,  you will soon come to the realisation that its exactly the same as car insurance, if you let someone sign up AFTER they crash their care your effectively going to be bled dry with nobody paying in, or you will be forced to take more and more money from those who are paying till you get to the point where nobody wants insurance as it would be cheaper to just buy a new car than pay for 9000 other people to get free repairs
> 
> if people just simply tax themselves as the rate they want the government to tax everyone you will soon have enough saving to afford health insurance if you want it, or you could use that money elsewhere.


Ooof, that's a can of worms I forgot about for a while. Mandatory car insurance, good grief.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> People die all the time, Lacius - I can't save everyone. I would like to, but I can't. What I can do is look after the people I'm responsible for, that's my prerogative. Nothing more, nothing less. My objective in life is to maximise the flourishing of myself and my loved ones, this objective necessitates that I look at my bottom line first and foremost. If I have some excess, I will share it, but on my own terms.


"People die" isn't much of a defense of the systemic problems with a society that allows people to die unnecessarily. I'm also not arguing that we can save everyone, but we can dramatically mitigate the number of people dying from lack of health insurance. Again, these are people who don't have a choice. Don't act like it's either "save everyone" or "save no one."

Not only is caring for yourself and your family not mutually exclusive with caring for strangers, but you also can't do the former without doing the latter. You and your loved ones also live in the aforementioned broken system. Living in a society that's okay with needless suffering means you live in a society that might allow you to needlessly suffer.

As much as I want to argue that life=good, it's not feeling like a productive use of my time.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> "People die" isn't much of a defense of the systemic problems with a society that allows people to die unnecessarily. I'm also not arguing that we can save everyone, but we can dramatically mitigate the number of people dying from lack of health insurance. Again, these are people who don't have a choice. Don't act like it's either "save everyone" or "save no one."
> 
> Not only is caring for yourself and your family not mutually exclusive with caring for strangers, but you also can't do the former without doing the latter. You and your loved ones also live in the aforementioned broken system. Living in a society that's okay with needless suffering means you live in a society that might allow you to needlessly suffer.
> 
> As much as I want to argue that life=good, it's not feeling like a productive use of my time.


It isn't, because you don't have to argue it. I don't like the current system either, we just have drastically different ideas on how it should be improved because we have a very different world view and different priorities.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Ooof, that's a can of worms I forgot about for a while. Mandatory car insurance, good grief.


yeah, but on that one i can at least say its basically forcing you to put money aside for if you kill someone else or ruin their property, your not forced to insure your own car, sure it sucks if your a good driver, but i would imagine its better than having tossers destroying other peoples cars and just getting to walk away leaving their victim screwed out of their property potentially loosing their jobs through no fault of their own.....its a shame we dont have a system where people would be held to account for their own actions but alas

tbh im not even totally against free healthcare, the NHS used to work ok, but as with the car insurance analogy once people can just drop into the system without ever paying in or at least having their immediate family paying in you sudden find you have sprung a leak in the funding, not to mention the rampant miss-management and sleazy deals made by politicians the system will always become contaminated over time and the money people are paying in taxes for "health-care" will be getting funnelled out of the system with dodgy contracts for over priced shit that MP's decided to slide in their from their mates new business...totally coincidental ofc

i just dont see the governments handling of anything as ever being able to avoid corruption, if you have someone with access to billions and the ability to force people to sign up for contracts, its pretty much inevitable that people will start corrupting the system, and when you take out the free market competition it can fester for decades with no need to ever say "errrr why have i been charged £120 for a piece of paper"


----------



## Lacius (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It isn't, because you don't have to argue it. I don't like the current system either, we just have drastically different ideas on how it should be improved because we have a very different world view and different priorities.


Our most recent conversation hasn't been a debate about how it should be improved. Our most recent conversation has been a debate about whether or not it should be improved.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Our most recent conversation hasn't been a debate about how it should be improved. Our most recent conversation has been a debate about whether or not it should be improved.


I believe I stated quite explicitly that it should be nuked from orbit and that everything about it is asenine because it's a hodgepodge of ideas that don't fit, I don't know how else I could describe how I feel about it. Forgive me, I don't have total recall.


gamesquest1 said:


> yeah, but on that one i can at least say its basically forcing you to put money aside for if you kill someone else or ruin their property, your not forced to insure your own car, sure it sucks if your a good driver, but i would imagine its better than having tossers destroying other peoples cars and just getting to walk away leaving their victim screwed out of their property potentially loosing their jobs through no fault of their own.....its a shame we dont have a system where people would be held to account for their own actions but alas
> 
> tbh im not even totally against free healthcare, the NHS used to work ok, but as with the car insurance analogy once people can just drop into the system without ever paying in or at least having their immediate family paying in you sudden find you have sprung a leak in the funding, not to mention the rampant miss-management and sleazy deals made by politicians the system will always become contaminated over time and the money people are paying in taxes for "health-care" will be getting funnelled out of the system with dodgy contracts for over priced shit that MP's decided to slide in their from their mates new business...totally coincidental ofc


Owning a vehicle necessitates insurance the same way owning a TV necessitates a TV license - it doesn't. All insurance is a calculated bet and should be optional. If you wreck someone's car and you don't have insurance, guess what? You're paying out of pocket. If you can't, the police can auction your property - they're pretty good at that. Removing the optional nature of insurance just allows insurance companies to give zero shits about their customers because, guess what, their customers don't have a choice in the matter. It creates a cabal of insurers who no longer have to compete by providing good value for money - they can just sit there and wait for money to fall into their laps.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Our most recent conversation hasn't been a debate about how it should be improved. Our most recent conversation has been a debate about whether or not it should be improved.


Everyone here agrees that it should be improved. How is a different story. The European system has flaws. We should figure out an even better system then theirs.

http://leeconomics.com/01-Sowell-EconomicsMedicalCare.html


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Everyone here agrees that it should be improved. How is a different story. The European system has flaws. We should figure out an even better system then theirs.
> 
> http://leeconomics.com/01-Sowell-EconomicsMedicalCare.html


It's really funny that we're having this debate about healthcare, but we're not having it about bread. I can go to a store and just buy a loaf of bread - there's thousands of stores and thousands of brands. I can just grab one, pay at the till and be on my merry way with my loaf of bread thanks to which I won't starve. I can't do that in a hospital for some reason - there has to be 101 hoops that inflate the total cost to such an exorbitant amount that *not* participating in the crazy system isn't even viable.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I believe I stated quite explicitly that it should be nuked from orbit and that everything about it is asenine because it's a hodgepodge of ideas that don't fit, I don't know how else I could describe how I feel about it. Forgive me, I don't have total recall.
> Owning a vehicle necessitates insurance the same way owning a TV necessitates a TV license - it doesn't. All insurance is a calculated bet and should be optional. If you wreck someone's car and you don't have insurance, guess what? You're paying out of pocket. If you can't, the police can auction your property - they're pretty good at that. Removing the optional nature of insurance just allows insurance companies to give zero shits about their customers because, guess what, their customers don't have a choice in the matter. It creates a cabal of insurers who no longer have to compete by providing good value for money - they can just sit there and wait for money to fall into their laps.


You've argued that the lives of people you don't know don't matter enough to do anything about their unnecessary deaths. They should be _left to their own devices_, which objectively means many of them will die. Some will die because they made poor decisions, and others will die despite making all of the right decisions.

I'm not content with that, but that's your prerogative. We can drop it.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's really funny that we're having this debate about healthcare, but we're not having it about bread. I can go to a store and just buy a loaf of bread - there's thousands of stores and thousands of brands. I can just grab one, pay at the till and be on my merry way with my loaf of bread thanks to which I won't starve. I can't do that in a hospital for some reason - there has to be 101 hoops that inflate the total cost to such an exorbitant amount that *not* participating in the crazy system isn't even viable.


Food is extremely cheap in the U.S. so cheap that we have an obesity epidemic. You're more likely to be fat if your poor. Only Kings had this luxury in the past.


There use to be a time Health Care was cheap in the U.S. Cost's are inflated to horrible levels because of all those stupid hoops that need to be eliminated. This isn't a free market. And the European System conceals their actual costs.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's really funny that we're having this debate about healthcare, but we're not having it about bread. I can go to a store and just buy a loaf of bread - there's thousands of stores and thousands of brands. I can just grab one, pay at the till and be on my merry way with my loaf of bread thanks to which I won't starve. I can't do that in a hospital for some reason - there has to be 101 hoops that inflate the total cost to such an exorbitant amount that *not* participating in the crazy system isn't even viable.


yeah i do think the force should never be exerted, as i mentioned in my previous post, once something is forced it will inevitably start to become inflated in value, if i sold beans and people were legally obliged to buy my beans ....why on earth would i not just start selling  my beans for £1000000000.......i mean people are forced to buy them

i actually know a few people who work in the NHS and have heard tons of stories of stupid contracts hospitals are forced into, such as buying stacks of paper from a specific company that charges £32 per ream of paper.....when they could just get them from tesco for £1.50, the ability to force people to commit to something just guarantees those who hold the reigns can essentially just take money out of your wallet and spend it on whatever they like and you can't even ask for the receipts


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> They operate in the exact same system you do, they just happen to have money.


That's a pretty big difference-maker.  It means they don't operate in the exact same way I do, otherwise I'd be flat broke and homeless in a matter of days.  They can take any stupid risk they want, and they know daddy/the banks/the government/_someone_ will bail them out if things go South.  Socialism and abundant social safety nets for the rich, capitalism for everyone else.  Or if you prefer: capitalist gains, socialized losses.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> yeah i do think the force should never be exerted, as i mentioned in my previous post, once something is forced it will inevitably start to become inflated in value, if i sold beans and people were legally obliged to buy my beans ....why on earth would i not just start selling  my beans for £1000000000.......i mean people are forced to buy them
> 
> i actually know a few people who work in the NHS and have heard tons of stories of stupid contracts hospitals are forced into, such as buying stacks of paper from a specific company that charges £32 per ream of paper.....when they could just get them from tesco for £1.50, the ability to force people to commit to something just guarantees those who hold the reigns can essentially just take money out of your wallet and spend it on whatever they like and you can't even ask for the receipts


That's what happens when you give gov power to dictate what you can and can't do. Instead of letting market decide what's best, cheapest and most efficient way to produce something.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That's what happens when you give gov power to dictate what you can and can't do. Instead of letting market decide what's best, cheapest and most efficient way to produce something.


The cheapest way to produce something is to outsource the labor and/or use machine labor.  You can therefore understand how no corporation has your best interests at heart.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That's what happens when you give gov power to dictate what you can and can't do. Instead of letting market decide what's best, cheapest and most efficient way to produce something.


yeah what's worse is its all done with shady backroom deals, when the guy i knew decided to raise the issue that the hospital he was working at was buying in 200 boxes of reams of paper per month and they only ever used 1/4 of them and had to bin the rest when the next delivery came in he was effectively told to shut up by management i'm sure a lot of palms are greased in these contracts, its certainly not a system with much concern over what they are spending

i wonder if mods ever get reported for being off topic


----------



## Jhyrachy (Apr 25, 2019)

I think that a lot of people who talk about healthcare never had any insight.

Healthcare in the usa is crazy expensive without a real reason, except because is a ratchet between hospital (that are "for profit") and insurance.  

there are HUNDREDS of reason to have a socialized healthcare, we could spend hours without reaching the bottom of it.

Also, just few words about car insurance: if you are broken and you hit someone, who is going to pay the victim? No one.
That's why car/truck/scooter insurance MUST be mandatory.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 25, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> yeah i do think the force should never be exerted, as i mentioned in my previous post, once something is forced it will inevitably start to become inflated in value, if i sold beans and people were legally obliged to buy my beans ....why on earth would i not just start selling  my beans for £1000000000.......i mean people are forced to buy them
> 
> i actually know a few people who work in the NHS and have heard tons of stories of stupid contracts hospitals are forced into, such as buying stacks of paper from a specific company that charges £32 per ream of paper.....when they could just get them from tesco for £1.50, the ability to force people to commit to something just guarantees those who hold the reigns can essentially just take money out of your wallet and spend it on whatever they like and you can't even ask for the receipts


The NHS is insanely wasteful. Just two years ago the "consultation scandal" broke and the nation found out about doctors making deals with hospitals to work overtime as "consultants" for exorbitant fees. A "consultant" makes £89,000 a year on top of their basic salary as a doctor, that's $114,000 in freedom money. They make anywhere between £300 and £1000 per four-hour shift - the higher estimate is a little bit below what a minimum wage employee can make in a month. In four hours. On top of their normal salary. The highest-paid consultant was paid a total of £375,000 in 2015, or $438,000. For part-time consultations on the side every now and then. It's asinine.



Jhyrachy said:


> Also, just few words about car insurance: if you are broken and you hit someone, who is going to pay the victim? No one.
> That's why car/truck/scooter insurance MUST be mandatory.


That's not how debt works.


----------



## gamesquest1 (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The NHS is insanely wasteful. Just two years ago the "consultation scandal" broke and the nation found out about doctors making deals with hospitals to work overtime as "consultants" for exorbitant fees. A "consultant" makes £89,000 a month on top of their basic salary as a doctor, that's $114,000 in freedom money. They make anywhere between £300 and £1000 per four-hour shift - the higher estimate is a little bit below what a minimum wage employee can make in a month. In four hours. On top of their normal salary. The highest-paid consultant was paid a total of £375,000 in 2015, or $438,000. For part-time consultations on the side every now and then. It's asinine.





Jhyrachy said:


> I think that a lot of people who talk about healthcare never had any insight.
> 
> Healthcare in the usa is crazy expensive without a real reason, except because is a ratchet between hospital (that are "for profit") and insurance.
> 
> ...



this is the point, just because you make something "socialised" doesn't make it any less prone to plundering, if anything it makes the problem worse because now your another level disconnected from the costs, the more levels between the consumer and the provider the easier it is to overcharge and inflate prices because you never see the breakdown of "£210 for a print out" if people were put face to face with the charges these practices would soon be severely limited, because once i know what im truly paying i will be a lot more critical of the prices, its why often people just pay for their own car repairs even though they have insurance, because they know that in the long run the increased insurance rates will far surpass the £200 for a new bumper to be fitted, spreading out the cost nearly always results in over charging


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

gamesquest1 said:


> yeah what's worse is its all done with shady backroom deals, when the guy i knew decided to raise the issue that the hospital he was working at was buying in 200 boxes of reams of paper per month and they only ever used 1/4 of them and had to bin the rest when the next delivery came in he was effectively told to shut up by management i'm sure a lot of palms are greased in these contracts, its certainly not a system with much concern over what they are spending


They don't care how much they spend because it's other peoples money. If it's your own money you focus on saving as much as you can and go for the cheapest deals. That lowers costs for everyone because then businesses will have to compete to give you the best product they can. But if Gov is buying expensive products then that motivation to out compete with each other is taken out. They are putting the power of the market to a few politicians that don't know how to run business instead of giving that power to the people. The market eliminates the inefficient ones all the time, with the 90% business fail statistic Foxi4 gave. It's a tough world out there for a business person and you need to work hard to be the best, which then means better products for us and raised living standard for us, or you'll fail.


This is one of the hidden costs that's behind the curtains that people pay with their taxes. It's makes the system unnecessarily expensive. The problem is they don't see this as a problem because they compare it to the horrible U.S. system, but neither system is running as efficiently as it can. And the U.S. has hoops involved that is not an entirely free system, so it's not a good comparison for what the free market can achieve. Just look at how cheap food is here and how many people are fat.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 25, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Ooof, that's a can of worms I forgot about for a while. Mandatory car insurance, good grief.



I've been a city planner for some years, and I consider that to be the biggest scam I've seen in my career alongside driver's licenses themselves -- particularly from overseas countries that have no reliable authority issuing them.

Pay for your driver's license and insurance.  It doesn't matter if you can speak the same language as law enforcement or read the signs.  It's a real problem.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They don't care how much they spend because it's other peoples money.


This completely ignores the fact that Medicare is far more cost efficient than any privatized insurance available.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> This completely ignores the fact that Medicare is far more cost efficient than any privatized insurance available.


That doesn't make sense. Because you have to pay the middle men Bureaucrats involved in addition to health care.
Are you comparing to the U.S. system? Because we keep saying that the U.S. system isn't entirely free.


----------



## brickmii82 (Apr 25, 2019)

Topic is kinda being derailed here a bit. Ijs


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

brickmii82 said:


> Topic is kinda being derailed here a bit. Ijs


They are not going to get Trump on Obstruction. He said he wanted to do this and that but they did none of that. They gave Mueller thousands of documents to look at. So most likely he was letting off steam for an investigation he believed should have not happened. Should he be impeached for letting off steam and not actually following though with it? Is someone saying online saying I WISH they would die actually mean it, or are they letting off steam? He can fire Mueller because its within his right, and thats not obstruction. They should stop with the Russia Collusion thing and actually do something instead like focus on College Debt or Global Warming.

Likely the Mueller knew it was all bull crap within a month and used the other 21 months to see if they can get dirt on Trump since his team is made up of entirely democrats which failed.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> That doesn't make sense. Because you have to pay the middle men Bureaucrats involved in addition to health care.
> Are you comparing to the U.S. system? Because we keep saying that the U.S. system isn't entirely free.


Yes, I'm talking about the US system, and the idea with Medicare-for-all is that you would _only_ have to pay a bit more in monthly taxes rather than having to pay healthcare premiums as well.  Even if it was $150/month in extra taxes, that'd still be about half the price of individual healthcare coverage at the moment.  I expect it would actually be closer to $20 - $40 extra in taxes on average, because the ultra-wealthy would also bear a lot of that tax burden.


----------



## brickmii82 (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They are not going to get Trump on Obstruction. He said he wanted to do this and that but they did none of that. They gave Mueller thousands of documents to look at. So most likely he was letting off steam for an investigation he believed should have not happened. Should he be impeached for letting off steam and not actually following though with it? Is someone saying online saying I WISH they would die actually mean it, or are they letting off steam? He can fire Mueller because its within his right, and thats not obstruction. They should stop with the Russia Collusion thing and actually do something instead like focus on College Debt or Global Warming.
> 
> Likely the Mueller knew it was all bull crap within a month and used the other 21 months to see if they can get dirt on Trump since his team is made up of entirely democrats which failed.


And we're back on topic.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They are not going to get Trump on Obstruction.


He certainly seems to be panicking about potential impeachment either way, suggesting that he'll "go to the Supreme Court" to intervene if impeachment proceedings begin.  Spoilers: the Supreme Court has no say in that process, so that's not how it works.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Yes, I'm talking about the US system, and the idea with Medicare-for-all is that you would _only_ have to pay a bit more in monthly taxes rather than having to pay healthcare premiums as well.  Even if it was $150/month in extra taxes, that'd still be about half the price of individual healthcare coverage at the moment.  I expect it would actually be closer to $20 - $40 extra in taxes on average, because the ultra-wealthy would also bear a lot of that tax burden.


The low tax payment will conceal the actual costs. It's an illusion of a cheap system. The costs are the same either system and have to be paid somehow.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> He certainly seems to be panicking about potential impeachment either way, suggesting that he'll "go to the Supreme Court" to intervene if impeachment proceedings begin.  Spoilers: the Supreme Court has no say in that process, so that's not how it works.


That's what they always say. It's nothing new. He's panicking. The walls are closing in. Trump knows he's finish. The dirt on him is overwhelming. And yet nothing. No collusion at all. And likely Elizabeth Warren is using the impeachment chant to try to save her failing campaign.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The low tax payment will conceal the actual costs. It's an illusion of a cheap system.


It _is_ a cheap system because you'd have so many more people that aren't covered now paying into it.



SG854 said:


> That's what they always say. It's nothing new.


The Mueller report is still very new in the context of his entire presidency.  You're severely underestimating what its impact has been and will be.  Trump would not be mentioning impeachment unless he felt like he had to.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It _is_ a cheap system because you'd have so many more people that aren't covered now paying into it.


The costs are the same. Having gov pay for a TV because one day we decide its a basic human right doesn't make the productions of TV's cheaper. It actually can make it more expensive because its an inefficient system which then more of peoples tax dollars has to go to cover the higher costs. We get less efficient made Tv's and stunt our standard of living.


How come we don't provide free food to everyone? Shouldn't food be a right to people? It's actually more important then Health Care. It's something we need on the daily and consume more often. Wouldn't it be cheaper to have everyone pitch in through taxes. And have gov decide how much of what you can eat every day and what you can eat.


----------



## Jhyrachy (Apr 25, 2019)

have anyone here even learned how the different system works?

USA has the MOST EXPENSIVE healthcare in the world because when you have any kind of needs, your insurance COULD (the conditional is really important) cover it with a maximal that is not known to the hospital, so the hospital will always try to max it
practical example:
John need an RX, his insurance cover up to 600$
Need an RX too, but his insurance cover up to 800$
The hospital is going to charge 1000$ so it's sure to max the premium of both of them and even of someone who it's not known.
You know how much cost an RX in Europe? UP TO 150€, usually less.

that's because there is a lot less clutter and management to pay because the hospital IS NOT MADE FOR PROFIT
Also, since it's managed by the gov, they have a much higher contractual power.
When we buy medicine, we do not buy in the hundreds, but in the hundreds of thousands, this allow much better prices on pretty much everything. Some meds that costs HUNDREDS in the usa costs less then 10€, made by the same manufacturer, because they know that they cannot made the same trick they do in the usa.

All of this translate in an healthier population, that's happier and more productive, because they are not living in fear of going bankrupt if they have any kind of disease


EDIT: Do not make me even start about all the logistic advantages a socialized healthcare has, for example we can have more specialized centres were all the difficult cases are sent, where we can have much lower costs per patient, since there already all the needed equipments and trained staff to manage them.  
An hospital with 10 patients does not cost 1/10th of an hospital with 100, you are lucky if it costs half, cost per patient tend to decrease really fast once you have all the infrastructure in place.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The costs are the same.


Private insurance rates have gone up nearly twice as fast as Medicare rates.



SG854 said:


> How come we don't provide free food to everyone?


In the US, we do.  In the form of publicly-run soup kitchens, as well as religious and charity efforts.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> In the US, we do.  In the form of publicly-run soup kitchens, as well as religious and charity efforts.


They are not providing food to the entire country. And some are charity from donations.



Xzi said:


> Private insurance rates have gone up nearly twice as fast as Medicare rates.






> Krugman cites all the familiar figures from the rest of the developed world, where some mix of public insurance with some private elements manages to cover almost everyone and at a much lower cost than in the United States.


Their system not entirely socialized. And somehow their mixed privatized and socialized system led them to cheaper costs, but our mixed system experiment didn't. Something tells me there was many unneeded hoops involved.




> But that less-private system of health care been taken off the table in this country by the private corporate interests who profit from the expensive mess of a health care system we have now.


Our System is less privatized.


I clicked on the link that says "Medicare is better on all counts" but it says page not found.

What the article said


> So yes, Medicare needs better cost controls






> Just as artificially low housing prices have led many people to seek their own separate housing units who would not ordinarily do so, if they had to pay the full costs in a free market, so artificially less expensive — in some countries, free — medical care has led many people with minor medical problems to absorb far more of doctors' time and expensive medicines and treatments than they would if they had to pay the costs themselves.
> 
> France is an example:
> 
> ...


http://leeconomics.com/02-Sowell-MedicalCarePriceControl.html

Your article also said the Socialized Health Care Rose the costs. So it made my point that, that system isn't entirely efficient.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Your article also said the Socialized Health Care Rose the costs. So it made my point that, that system isn't entirely efficient.


My only point was that Medicare is a little over half the cost of private insurance.  I don't know what "entirely efficient" would mean in this context, but it's almost twice as efficient as everything else available in the US.  I can find you plenty more sources that show the same thing.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Even if it was $150/month in extra taxes, that'd still be about half the price of individual healthcare coverage at the moment.




But I don't pay anything like that for my healthcare now. To cover me, wife, and kids. Same goes for millions of working American households. My employer foots most of the expense. Yes, technically it's part of my compensation package, but ... if and when they ever pass "Medicare for all" and my employer doesn't have to pay for the bulk of my health insurance premium anymore, there ain't no way in hell they're just going to tack that money onto my paycheck out of the goodness of their heart. It is to laugh. I'd be paying more taxes, with the same income, with shitty government-managed single payer healthcare. (I've lived in such circumstances before in Japan, have in-laws living there now ... no thank you.)


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 25, 2019)

...I'm going to ignore quite some posts here (I don't know how it ended up with healthcare to begin with  ), so I might repeat some people.


I haven't fully read the report yet*, but I've read enough to know that the public knowledge is pretty much true: there are plenty of indications of collusion. The whole "indications isn't the same as proof" mantra...I'm sorry to say something personal, but honestly: those are really pathetic excuses.

The thing is: Mueller (and his team) knew from the start that they couldn't indict a sitting president. That's why it's framed rather careful. My opinion is colored by youtube commenters, but I agree with them with the impression that Mueller really messaged to the senate _"either you'll impeach him now, or you'll have to wait until he's no longer a sitting president before it comes to a trial"_. He gathered and collected the evidence, but it's not up to him to chose what to do with it.

...and THAT is what should have been in the not-a-summary from Barr. Instead, Barr said something vague in the trend of "it doesn't say Trump is guilty, but...", which was immediately interpreted and broadcasted wrong. If this was just after Trump's inauguration, I wouldn't have blamed Barr for this mistake, but by now we all know Trump's spiel: he doesn't care about the truth, only in what he can make people believe. So of course Barr should've anticipated an "THIS REPORT TOTALLY EXONERATES ME!!!!" lie from Donald, and should have refrained from anything but the clear truth on what was in the report.

Then again: if Barr had done that and Trump kept his dumb mouth shut, it's likely that the report would never have been publicly released to begin with.**

In either case: Trump's guilty of a whole lot of illegal stuff, and the proof is in the report. The only question remaining is how long the US citizens are going to tolerate having an untrialed*** criminal for president.



*apparently, neither did Donald Trump. I get he's a busy man, but really...shouldn't this be the sort of documents you really want to read YOURSELF rather than delegating it to someone else? 
** I'm not too familiar with the watergate scandal, but I'm fairly sure that if Nixon boasted to everyone that his precious tapes contained nothing important rather than quitting his job, then those tapes would've been forced into the public rather than remain in his personal possession instead.
***again: the reason for not having a trial is because a sitting president is above it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> But I don't pay anything like that for my healthcare now. To cover me, wife, and kids. Same goes for millions of working American households.


I only used that number as an exaggeration.  Like I said, actual coverage would probably be closer to $20 - $40 per month, per working member of the household.  It's unlikely that any employer would be able to match that rate.  Employers are constantly bitching about being the ones who have to provide coverage anyway.


----------



## Glyptofane (Apr 25, 2019)

You don't really have to pay medical bills as long as you don't rely on credit for anything else. We were billed $30k for my son's birth.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> ...I'm going to ignore quite some posts here (I don't know how it ended up with healthcare to begin with  ), so I might repeat some people.
> 
> 
> I haven't fully read the report yet*, but I've read enough to know that the public knowledge is pretty much true: there are plenty of indications of collusion. The whole "indications isn't the same as proof" mantra...I'm sorry to say something personal, but honestly: those are really pathetic excuses.
> ...


Mueller Offers no further recommendation for indictments.


What indications of collusion? There was none. Not a single American was charged with collusion. If he can't indict a sitting president, he can indict all the people around him on Russia Collusion but he didn't.



Mueller obliterated the collusion narrative.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18...ssia-conspiracy-theories-he-obliterated-them/


"The Office did not identify evidence in those interactions of coordination between the Campaign and the Russian Government"


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Mueller Offers no further recommendation for indictments.


...But the report does specifically mention impeachment as one of the methods by which the president could be held accountable.  It also lays out in great detail everything a lawyer would need to proceed with obstruction of justice charges.  Ten of them, to be exact.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> ...But the report does specifically mention impeachment as one of the methods by which the president could be held accountable.  It also lays out in great detail everything a lawyer would need to proceed with obstruction of justice charges.  Ten of them, to be exact.


What you have to get Trump on is malicious intent of Obstruction. One big fact remains. There was no underlying Crime Established for Trump to Cover up. Which puts a blow to the Corrupt Intent part.

Most likely Trump wanted to end the investigation because he wanted to let off steam for an investigation he thinks should have never taken place in the first place. Now you would have to prove that Trump was either wanting to end it because he thinks the whole thing was a scam, or to corruptly conceal evidence of criminality.

Most likely its him thinking it was a scam, because 1) No Crime was Established, and 2) not a single American was charged. One person alone, Trump, can not cover up all the evidence on his own, and they investigated lots of Americans for 22 months, and not a single one charge. One would have slipped up by now, with the huge resources they had and what was praised by the left as the best team ever assembled, but not a single one was charged. And Mueller didn't just say their was insufficient evidence, he said on various instances there was no evidence at all. And they didn't just go the 2016 election they even went beyond that with his Financial Dealings with Russia, with Manafort, and the supposed Trump Tower meeting.



So knowing this information are people going to fairly judge the president with charging him on Obstruction due to Malicious Intent? We already know that the left is biased and wants to indict him regardless of lack of evidence of collusion, and will always say he being malicious even if evidence indicates that its not. The will always say yes indict him no matter what. But they are only going to piss off a bunch of conservatives especially the ones that control the Senate. And your only going to get them to relalitate and increase his chances of becomeing president.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 25, 2019)

SG854 said:


> What you have to get Trump on is malicious intent of Obstruction.


Intent is one of the three elements needed to prove obstruction of justice, yes, and there is a detailed section on intent included for each of the ten charges in the Mueller report.



SG854 said:


> There was no underlying Crime Established for Trump to Cover up. Which puts a blow to the Corrupt Intent part.


You're talking about the intent to commit other crimes, which is not a required part of proving obstruction of justice.  Those would be filed as other charges.


----------



## Taleweaver (Apr 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Mueller Offers no further recommendation for indictments.
> 
> 
> What indications of collusion? There was none. Not a single American was charged with collusion. If he can't indict a sitting president, he can indict all the people around him on Russia Collusion but he didn't.
> ...


I suggest you read the report.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> In either case: Trump's guilty of a whole lot of illegal stuff, and the proof is in the report. The only question remaining is how long the US citizens are going to tolerate having an untrialed criminal for president.


The report explicitly states that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump, or any of his staff for that matter, for any crime. Your conclusion is the exact opposite of Mueller's, Barr's and Rosenstein's. The president isn't and has never been accused of any illegal conduct in regards to this matter.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 26, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> I suggest you read the report.


It just tells us what we already know. Nothing new. I'm going though it right now. Guccifer, Podesta email leak to phishing, Naked Bernie memes, Julian Assange wanting a Republican to win because he thinks people will resit a Republican more then Hillary, and he was worried about Hillary because she was war hawkish. There's hardly anything I already didn't know for months.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> ...But the report does specifically mention impeachment as one of the methods by which the president could be held accountable.  It also lays out in great detail everything a lawyer would need to proceed with obstruction of justice charges.  Ten of them, to be exact.


Context matters. The section mentions impeachment specifically to explain why a president cannot be indicted. The statute is explained for all the lemmings who actually think Trump could be prosecuted, which he won't due to a lack of any conclusive evidence, a motive or even proof of intent.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The report explicitly states that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump, or any of his staff for that matter, for any crime.


The report explicitly states that he cannot be exonerated.  That is the closest that Mueller could've possibly come, within the bounds of DOJ rules, to stating that he should be charged.  There also would've been no need for him to lay out all the components of each obstruction of justice charge so thoroughly otherwise.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The report explicitly states that he cannot be exonerated.  That is the closest that Mueller could've possibly come, within the bounds of DOJ rules, to stating that he should be charged.  There also would've been no need for him to lay out all the components of each obstruction of justice charge so thoroughly otherwise.


That's that nature of every single investigation in existence. You can't prove a negative. That's what that means.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The report explicitly states that he cannot be exonerated.  That is the closest that Mueller could've possibly come, within the bounds of DOJ rules, to stating that he should be charged.  There also would've been no need for him to lay out all the components of each obstruction of justice charge so thoroughly otherwise.


You cannot be exonerated of a crime that didn't happen. Since no obstruction was proven to have occured, the president de facto cannot be guilty or innocent of it.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Since no obstruction was proven to have occured, the president de facto cannot be guilty or innocent of it.


The Mueller report is literally a guide which can be used to prove it did happen.  Mueller was never going to be able to prosecute the president himself, after all, so this is the best he could do in lieu of that.

I think Dems have still been hesitant to start the impeachment process, but now that Trump is threatening to stonewall all subpoenas both related and unrelated to the Mueller report, they're probably slowly realizing that there will be no choice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The Mueller report is literally a guide which can be used to prove it did happen.  Mueller was never going to be able to prosecute the president himself, after all, so this is the best he could do in lieu of that.
> 
> I think Dems have still been hesitant to start the impeachment process, but now that Trump is threatening to stonewall all subpoenas both related and unrelated to the Mueller report, they're probably slowly realizing that there will be no choice.


That's not true. Mueller himself states that even though the president cannot be indicted during his term and must first be removed from office via impeachment, this would not prevent him from suggesting prosecution if he believed there was evidence to reasonably suggest obstruction of justice. He does not make such a suggestion and instead defers the decision regarding any further investigation to the AG, who then dismissed it due to lack of evidence. The report is a dead end, your best bet for impeachment would be a further counter intelligence investigation, and once that inevitably fails, an investigation into Trump's shoe size, his favourite soup and other assorted nonsense.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not true. Mueller himself states that even though the president cannot be indicted during his term and must first be removed from office via impeachment, this would not prevent him from suggesting prosecution if he believed there was evidence to reasonably suggest obstruction of justice. He does not make such a suggestion and instead defers the decision regarding any further investigation to the AG, who then dismissed it due to lack of evidence. The report is a dead end, your best bet for impeachment would be a further counter intelligence investigation, and once that inevitably fails, an investigation into Trump's shoe size, his favourite soup and other assorted nonsense.


Like this one

Trump gets two scopes of ice cream instead of one.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You voted for a guy who raw-dogs porn stars.


I somehow missed that one, but I do think it should be his campaign slogan for 2020. "I raw-dog porn stars" has a nice ring to it.



SG854 said:


> Like this one
> 
> Trump gets two scopes of ice cream instead of one.


He also drinks water using two hands.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not true. Mueller himself states that even though the president cannot be indicted during his term and must first be removed from office via impeachment, this would not prevent him from suggesting prosecution if he believed there was evidence to reasonably suggest obstruction of justice.


Which is why the report also suggests that Trump could be indicted once out of office.  It was always meant to be a punt to Congress on whether or not to impeach.



Foxi4 said:


> I somehow missed that one, but I do think it should be his campaign slogan for 2020. "I raw-dog porn stars" has a nice ring to it.


That being the case, might I also suggest "Trump 2020, imagine Toad with chlamydia sores."  Or, "Trump 2020, my wife always sleeps in a different state."


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Which is why the report also suggests that Trump could be indicted once out of office.  It was always meant to be a punt to Congress on whether or not to impeach.


I will eagerly await for the articles of impeachment to be a huge waste of time that never goes through, or even before the Senate.


> That being the case, might I also suggest "Trump 2020, imagine Toad with chlamydia sores."  Or, "Trump 2020, my wife always sleeps in a different state."


You better watch out, the last person who made slanderous allegations like that ended up covering Trump's legal fees.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You better watch out, the last person who made slanderous allegations like that ended up covering Trump's legal fees.


The former I don't know is true, but when you raw-dog porn stars, shit's gonna happen.  The latter is a verifiable fact, and I'm not sure what else he expected his wife's reaction to be after finding out he paid (a lot of) hush money to fuck another woman.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The Mueller report is literally a guide which can be used to prove it did happen.  Mueller was never going to be able to prosecute the president himself, after all, so this is the best he could do in lieu of that.
> 
> I think Dems have still been hesitant to start the impeachment process, but now that Trump is threatening to stonewall all subpoenas both related and unrelated to the Mueller report, they're probably slowly realizing that there will be no choice.


There were 60 representatives voted for impeachment the week he was inaugurated, they tried to sue on the emoluments clause, then there was 25th amendment psychodrama, then they tried to sue 3 states for the voting machines to try to nullify the election, they tried to give the steele dossier to the electors to try to persuade them not to vote on constitutional mandate, then Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe meeting to see if they could pull cabinet members to remove him, then stormy daniels, then michael cohen, the tax returns, Mueller Report.


There was no waiting till 2020. There is a clear many attempts on trying to remove him, on whatever they can find. Many failed coup attempts.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> There was no waiting till 2020. There is a clear many attempts on trying to remove him, on whatever they can find.


You pretend as if any single one of the violations you listed wouldn't have been enough grounds to impeach any other president on.  Trump's closet full of skeletons at this point is like the Bill Clinton scandal, plus Watergate, plus 'buttery males,' and then some.  The only reason he hasn't been removed from office already is because Republicans have chosen party and sycophantic loyalty over country.  At least the 2018 midterms showed some hope that people are sick of it, and the political pendulum is swinging back in the other direction.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The former I don't know is true, but when you raw-dog porn stars, shit's gonna happen.  The latter is a verifiable fact, and I'm not sure what else he expected his wife's reaction to be after finding out he paid (a lot of) hush money to fuck another woman.


She's a trophy wife, so what? You're going to rag on him for not being a model Christian? If she's okay with it, so should you - I thought Democrats were all about consent?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> If she's okay with it, so should you


The premise of my original statement being that she's _not_ okay with it.  Thus the reason she sleeps in a different state from him every night.  And likely sleeps around too, but who could blame her.

Either way it's definitely hard to feel sorry for her, she put herself in that situation.  I just find it ridiculous that a mail-order bride is now the first lady, and you can see her tits on the internet.  Like we slipped into a Mad TV-esque parody of reality at some point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The premise of my original statement being that she's _not_ okay with it.  Thus the reason she sleeps in a different state from him every night.  And likely sleeps around too, but who could blame her.
> 
> Either way it's definitely hard to feel sorry for her, she put herself in that situation.  I just find it ridiculous that a mail-order bride is now the first lady, and you can see her tits on the internet.  Like we slipped into a Mad TV-esque parody of reality at some point.


I'm _totally_ okay with that, especially the last part. You're also naive if you think she's particularly bothered, she could very easily Bezos him if she wanted to, but calculated that staying with Trump is more beneficial to her.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm _totally_ okay with that, especially the last part.


I mean yeah, you'll forgive anything even tangentially related to Trump, but not everybody finds it so funny that's he's constantly spouting off about how bad immigrants are while simultaneously having an immigrant for a wife and chain-migrating her parents over.  Just another of so many reasons that the rest of the world sees the US as a joke now.  Our "leader" is not only stupid, not only likely a cuckold, but also unapologetic and blatant in his hypocrisy.

I don't need to rub it in their faces though, the areas that voted for Trump are now the ones paying the highest price for his lies.  Rust belt states are getting slaughtered in terms of jobs.  It's no wonder that nearly every Democratic option is polling ahead of Trump in those states already, some of them by double digits.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I mean yeah, you'll forgive anything even tangentially related to Trump, but not everybody finds it so funny that's he's constantly spouting off about how bad immigrants are while simultaneously having an immigrant for a wife and chain-migrating her parents over.  Just another of so many reasons that the rest of the world sees the US as a joke now.  Our "leader" is not only stupid, not only likely a cuckold, but also unapologetic and blatant in his hypocrisy.
> 
> I don't need to rub it in their faces though, the areas that voted for Trump are now the ones paying the highest price for his lies.  Rust belt states are getting slaughtered in terms of jobs.  It's no wonder that nearly every Democratic option is polling ahead of Trump in those states already, some of them by double digits.


That's not my point. My point is that your problem with Melania is that she's:

Trump's wife
Has nudes on the Internet
You're literally slut shaming her, isn't that beneath the dignity of your office?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not my point. My point is that your problem with Melania is that she's:
> 
> Trump's wife
> Has nudes on the Internet
> You're literally slut shaming her, isn't that beneath the dignity of your office?


If anything it's below the dignity of first lady.  It'd be like if Hillary won with pictures of Bill's dong on the internet.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> If anything it's below the dignity of first lady.  It'd be like if Hillary won with pictures of Bill's dong on the internet.


It's funny that she didn't pull that shit, I'll bet good money she has plenty. That would've gotten her a bunch of votes from the shitposting crowd.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 26, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's funny that she didn't pull that shit, I'll bet good money she has plenty. That would've gotten her a bunch of votes from the shitposting crowd.


Then again, shitposters likely aren't the most reliable voting bloc out there, lol.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Then again, shitposters likely aren't the most reliable voting bloc out there, lol.


@barronwaffles was right, you learned nothing from 2016! You can't win these days unless you promise to make Anime real.


----------



## osaka35 (Apr 27, 2019)

Eh, who cares about nudes. Hardly think showing a skin matters, unless she is adamant everyone else cover up or something silly like that. It's irrelevant unless she's making it relevant, and I don't think she has. 

so, back on topic:

Mueller said “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” and "The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."

Does that change your opinion on the report at all? I'm assuming it's been mentioned before, but why not bring it back up, eh?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Eh, who cares about nudes. Hardly think showing a skin matters, unless she is adamant everyone else cover up or something silly like that. It's irrelevant unless she's making it relevant, and I don't think she has.


Of course she hasn't made it relevant, she's largely an absentee first lady.  Not that Trump is much better in terms of being an absentee president, of course.  Spending most of his time slobbin' knobs down at Mar-A-Lago for some more donations from foreign corporations.



osaka35 said:


> Mueller said “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.” and "The evidence we obtained about the president’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred."


To further that point, there's reporting today that Mueller's team would have advocated for Trump facing federal criminal charges if not for the 'unique nature of the case.'  Shines a light on just how little independence these special investigators actually have:


			
				NYR Daily said:
			
		

> Privately, the two prosecutors, who were then employed in the special counsel’s office, told other Justice Department officials that had it not been for the unique nature of the case—the investigation of a sitting president of the United States, and one who tried to use the powers of his office to thwart and even close down the special counsel’s investigation—they would have advocated that he face federal criminal charges.


https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/04/26/mueller-prosecutors-trump-did-obstruct-justice/


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2019)

osaka35 said:


> Eh, who cares about nudes. Hardly think showing a skin matters, unless she is adamant everyone else cover up or something silly like that. It's irrelevant unless she's making it relevant, and I don't think she has.
> 
> so, back on topic:
> 
> ...


No, it does not, because I'm not particularly interested in what Mueller is and is not confident in. His level of competence is not being investigated here.


----------



## Rolf12 (Apr 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> No, it does not, because I'm not particularly interested in what Mueller is and is not confident in. His level of competence is not being investigated here.


Wasn't this report a big anti-climax? Soo much talk before and during. Someone broke wind from the sound of it; but no smell.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Wasn't this report a big anti-climax? Soo much talk before and during. Someone broke wind from the sound of it; but no smell.


Well, it was anti-climatic because Mueller handed off all the juicy stuff to other investigations and focused solely on conspiracy/obstruction.  The real bombshells are going to come from investigating Trump's finances, and that's just starting to happen now.  14 'spin-off' investigations in all.  Hopefully all of them can wrap up and present their findings before the 2020 election.


----------



## Rolf12 (Apr 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Well, it was anti-climatic because Mueller handed off all the juicy stuff to other investigations and focused solely on conspiracy/obstruction.  The real bombshells are going to come from investigating Trump's finances, and that's just starting to happen now.  14 'spin-off' investigations in all.  Hopefully all of them can wrap up and present their findings before the 2020 election.


Aha. That is more like it. Some good stuff coming up then. Look forward to observe the charade from a distance.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Apr 27, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Either way it's definitely hard to feel sorry for her, she put herself in that situation. I just find it ridiculous that a mail-order bride is now the first lady, and you can see her tits on the internet. Like we slipped into a Mad TV-esque parody of reality at some point


It's Clown World my friend. I'm thinking about making a thread about this soon.

Anyway, Trump as a person: he's an idiot and a loudmouth. He's done a couple things I agree with since taking office. For instance, he's willing to sign a Federal marijuana legalization bill, if it ever passes Congress. He also withdrew from a UN resolution that sook to disarm US citizens. I guess Obama signed his agreement to that without anyone knowing about it. That's about it though. Just a right-wing authoritarian.

Is he really a Russian spy that somehow managed to be granted a presidency without anyone finding out? He's not smart enough to cover up something like that. We live in Clown World, not a 007 movie.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 27, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> Is he really a Russian spy that somehow managed to be granted a presidency without anyone finding out? He's not smart enough to cover up something like that. We live in Clown World, not a 007 movie.


No, just a useful idiot who's easily manipulated by anyone if there's money involved.  That's why Russia aren't the only ones with a leash on him, there's also Saudi Arabia and Israel pulling his strings too.  Not to mention that deal he made to allow ZTE to sell Chinese spyware phones in the US, in exchange for a number of patents being granted to Ivanka in China.  Everything about the US is for sale under Trump's presidency, our morals and values certainly notwithstanding.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2019)

Rolf12 said:


> Wasn't this report a big anti-climax? Soo much talk before and during. Someone broke wind from the sound of it; but no smell.


Obstruction of justice is a crime, as such, I must apply the criminal evidentiary standard to it. If Mueller isn't confident about the results of his investigation then no crime has occurred, open and shut case. He's had ample time to investigate any and all possibilities, if that's not enough for him to be confident then either Trump is a genius or Mueller is incompetent. I can't make that estimation because this is not a referendum on Mueller's or Trump's competence.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Obstruction of justice is a crime, as such, I must apply the criminal evidentiary standard to it. If Mueller isn't confident about the results of his investigation then no crime has occurred, open and shut case. He's had ample time to investigate any and all possibilities, if that's not enough for him to be confident then either Trump is a genius or Mueller is incompetent. I can't make that estimation because this is not a referendum on Mueller's or Trump's competence.


That's not what happened. With regard to some of the instances of obstruction of justice, Mueller and Barr both agree the following three things occurred, which are all that are needed:

Obstructive acts occurred
There was a connection to an ongoing investigation
There was evidence of corrupt intent
Since Mueller and Barr both agree, these are not controversial. What are controversial are the following:

The reason Mueller didn't reach a determination
The reason Barr chose not to prosecute
Mueller says in his report that, since the Justice Department cannot indict a sitting president per Justice Department guidelines, he could never say that a sitting president committed obstruction of justice. To accuse someone of a crime requires, in his mind, the ability to prosecute and have a trial, which is where the accused can defend himself. Without a trial for a sitting president, he couldn't defend himself, and it would be unfair. Mueller then goes on to say the obstruction of justice could be charged one of the following ways:

After Trump is no longer president (statutes of limitation are included for this reason)
Congress could use the report as a roadmap for impeaching him
Ignoring that I disagree with the aforementioned Justice Department policy, I agree with Mueller here.

We found out yesterday that Barr chose not to prosecute solely because the obstructive acts failed (i.e. the people in the chain of obstruction didn't do what Trump told them to do). I wholeheartedly disagree with Barr's position here, and it's probably just his rationale after the fact, since everything about how he handled this demonstrates that his main goal was to make this look as good for Trump as possible.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> That's not what happened. With regard to some of the instances of obstruction of justice, Mueller and Barr both agree the following three things occurred, which are all that are needed:
> 
> Obstructive acts occurred
> There was a connection to an ongoing investigation
> ...


That's your interpretation of the events. I read the same report you did and have a completely different take on all this, as we've discovered before.

Let's have a look at what Barr had to say:



> Although the Deputy Attorney General and I disagreed with some of the Special Counsel’s legal theories and felt that some of the episodes examined did not amount to obstruction as a matter of law, we did not rely solely on that in making our decision (...)


Seems to me like they weren't in agreement. At all.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's your interpretation of the events. I read the same report you did and have a completely different take on all this, as we've discovered before.


Other than my views on the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents, everything I said was objective fact. Some of what I included was reported after the release of the report, not in the report (i.e. Barr's thinking on not pursuing obstruction charges against Trump).

Obstructive acts occurred.
There was a connection to an ongoing investigation.
There was evidence of corrupt intent.
Mueller didn't conclude Trump obstructed justice solely because of the aforementioned Justice Department policy.
Trump could be charged after he's no longer president, assuming it's before the statute of limitations is up.
Trump could be impeached for this.
Barr is not pursuing charges, according to him and/or people close to him, solely because the obstructive acts failed.
According to the law, obstructive acts don't have to succeed for one to have obstructed justice, so Barr is objectively wrong.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Other than my views on the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents, everything I said was objective fact. Some of what I included was reported after the release of the report, not in the report (i.e. Barr's thinking on not pursuing obstruction charges against Trump).
> 
> Obstructive acts occurred.
> There was a connection to an ongoing investigation.
> ...


Is that so? Barr seems to disagree with you.



> "In assessing the President’s actions discussed in the report, it is important to bear in mind the context. President Trump faced an unprecedented situation. As he entered into office, and sought to perform his responsibilities as President, federal agents and prosecutors were scrutinizing his conduct before and after taking office, and the conduct of some of his associates. At the same time, there was relentless speculation in the news media about the President’s personal culpability."


Sounds to me like, according to Barr, the president was annoyed with being investigated from Day 1 regarding collusion that didn't happen and asked a bunch of people to wrap it up without actually using any of his executive authority to end it. You're forgetting that as the head of the executive he could've just fired everyone on the spot and closed this thing shut, he had full authority to do so.

I don't know if you genuinely believe what you're saying or if you're just trying to muddy the waters, but I know the game the Democrats are playing right now - it's painfully obvious and transparent. You and your ilk tried to get him on collusion, but couldn't due to lack of evidence, so now you're going to hammer obstruction all day long. I don't know what you expected Trump to do or say - I don't think any president would welcome his authority being questioned. You've been obstructing the White House for over two years simply because you hate the guy - it's the pinnacle of pettiness.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Is that so? Barr seems to disagree with you.
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like, according to Barr, the president was annoyed with being investigated from Day 1 regarding collusion that didn't happen and asked a bunch of people to wrap it up without actually using any of his executive authority to end it. You're forgetting that as the head of the executive he could've just fired everyone on the spot and closed this thing shut, he had full authority to do so.
> ...


If you're going to put words in my mouth and purposefully mischaracterize my position, we are done here.

We can continue this conversation when you're less disingenuous.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to put words in my mouth and purposefully mischaracterize my position, we are done here.
> 
> We can continue this conversation when you're less disingenuous.


The pearl-clutching doesn't change the fact that the only Democratic priority over the course of the last few years was to depose Trump by any means necessary and it continues to be the driving force behind everything Democrats say and do, the entire platform appears to be "Orang man bad" for the casual observer. The only disingenuous thing about all this is that the whole shabam is rooted in some kind of principle, I would respect the Democrats, and yourself, much more if you just outright said that you hate Trump and that's why you want him gone - many others have said as much and credit to them, it's as good a motivation as any.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> The pearl-clutching doesn't change the fact that the only Democratic priority over the course of the last few years was to depose Trump by any means necessary and it continues to be the driving force behind everything Democrats say and do, the entire platform appears to be "Orang man bad" for the casual observer. The only disingenuous thing about all this is that the whole shabam is rooted in some kind of principle, I would respect the Democrats, and yourself, much more if you just outright said that you hate Trump and that's why you want him gone - many others have said as much and credit to them, it's as good a motivation as any.


Please don't misrepresent my position and then tell me I'm pearl-clutching when I call you out on it. Regardless of how you view it, you can understand I don't want to spend the time nor effort responding to what I perceive to be strawman arguments and pettiness. You're asking me to respond to things I never said as if your perceptions of what other people might be saying or doing are at all relevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.

In addition to being disingenuous, it's also irrelevant.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We found out yesterday that Barr chose not to prosecute solely because the obstructive acts failed (i.e. the people in the chain of obstruction didn't do what Trump told them to do). I wholeheartedly disagree with Barr's position here




I wholeheartedly disagreed with Comey's position that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted without proof of her intent in violating the law, even though intent isn't an element of the crimes alleged. Lot of good that did me though.

That's the funny thing about someone making a discretionary call. There are always some people who will disagree. This time, it's you.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I wholeheartedly disagreed with Comey's position that Hillary Clinton wouldn't be prosecuted without proof of her intent in violating the law, even though intent isn't an element of the crimes alleged. Lot of good that did me though.
> 
> That's the funny thing about someone making a discretionary call. There are always some people who will disagree. This time, it's you.


The allegations against Secretary Clinton are irrelevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Please don't misrepresent my position and then tell me I'm pearl-clutching when I call you out on it. Regardless of how you view it, you can understand I don't want to spend the time nor effort responding to what I perceive to be strawman arguments and pettiness. You're asking me to respond to things I never said as if your perceptions of what other people might be saying or doing are at all relevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.
> 
> In addition to being disingenuous, it's also irrelevant.


And yet you do respond. Hit a nerve? To be honest, it's not something worth arguing over, I'm just telling you how it looks, and it doesn't look good. All I can see in the current climate is the stages of grief - we're at denial now, but we'll eventually get to acceptance. The election of Trump allowed us to have discussions and enact (or more importantly, roll back) legislation that wouldn't be possible under any other candidate, and I'll always be grateful for that, regardless of any future investigations or the 2020 results. I can only hope that the Republican party learned something from the Trumpism phenomenon and will tailor candidates with it in mind in the future, once the Trump era is over. Perhaps good old Ted could run in 2028, I'd be pretty stoked if he did.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> And yet you do respond.


I'm trying to respectfully give you a succinct explanation for why I'm not responding to the substance of your posts. I've also gone out of my way to word my response so you can at least understand where I'm coming from without actually agreeing with anything else I've said. Please don't act like I'm contradicting myself.



Foxi4 said:


> And yet you do respond. Hit a nerve?


I don't know how I can say this more respectfully, but this kind of condescending baiting makes me question how you're a moderator.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm trying to respectfully give you a succinct explanation for why I'm not responding to the substance of your posts. I've also gone out of my way to word my response so you can at least understand where I'm coming from without actually agreeing with anything else I've said. Please don't act like I'm contradicting myself.
> 
> I don't know how I can say this more respectfully, but this kind of condescending baiting makes me question how you're a moderator.


I can assure you that teasing and making jokes is not beneath the dignity of my office.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I can assure you that teasing and making jokes is not beneath the dignity of my office.


I'm not sure that's how I would characterize your most recent post(s), but it's not particularly important.


----------



## Hanafuda (Apr 27, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The allegations against Secretary Clinton are irrelevant to whether or not Trump obstructed justice.



I was just making the point that persons in positions of authority that make discretionary decisions usually have the force of law backing them up, and for the most part if you disagree there's not much you can do about it.


Of course Congress still has the option, but I don't expect they will. I don't think we'll ever even see Mueller testifying.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 27, 2019)

Hanafuda said:


> I was just making the point that persons in positions of authority that make discretionary decisions usually have the force of law backing them up, and for the most part if you disagree there's not much you can do about it.


I agree 100%.



Hanafuda said:


> Of course Congress still has the option, but I don't expect they will. I don't think we'll ever even see Mueller testifying.


A lot can happen between now and 2021, but I could see impeachment happening, albeit without a conviction from the Republican Senate. I also think a Mueller testimony is more likely than not down the road.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Other than my views on the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents, everything I said was objective fact. Some of what I included was reported after the release of the report, not in the report (i.e. Barr's thinking on not pursuing obstruction charges against Trump).
> 
> Obstructive acts occurred.
> There was a connection to an ongoing investigation.
> ...


How can you obstruct something that doesn’t exist. What exactly was he obstructing?

So they didn’t charge any American with collusion and you are trying to get Trump for obstructing something that doesn’t exist on an investigation that should have never taken place in the first place because of lack of evidence.


Trump saying they were on a wild goose chase and would waste millions of tax payer dollars and waste time, but I’m not going to stop you making a fool of yourself. Trump advising them to not go that route is not obstruction of justice. No sane person would see this as obstruction of justice, for a crime that doesn’t exist.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How can you obstruct something that doesn’t exist. What exactly was he obstructing?


How are you still confused about this?  He was obstructing investigations, tampering with witnesses, threatening to fire investigators, destroying evidence that was requested...the list goes on.  It's all in the report.



SG854 said:


> Trump saying they were on a wild goose chase and would waste millions of tax payer dollars and waste time, but I’m not going to stop you making a fool of yourself.


You're the only one making a fool of himself, the Mueller investigation paid for itself and and then some when they seized Manafort's assets.  Not that it makes any difference.  I certainly didn't hear Republicans complaining about the millions they wasted investigating Hillary just to find nothing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You're the only one making a fool of himself, the Mueller investigation paid for itself and and then some when they seized Manafort's assets.  Not that it makes any difference.  I certainly didn't hear Republicans complaining about the millions they wasted investigating Hillary just to find nothing.


There is zero doubt that Hillary Clinton broke the law and attempted to conceal that fact by destroying the evidence, Comey just chose not to press any charges because he couldn't establish intent, neglecting to mention the fact that the crimes Hillary was accused of did not require an established intent. Nobody *intends* to be criminally negligent, "intentional criminal negligence" is called sabotage. That's neither here nor there, it's water under the bridge, my point was that whataboutism is not a good argument - one massive waste of money does not excuse another massive waste of money.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> There is zero doubt that Hillary Clinton broke the law


Considering it's "innocent until proven guilty" and Republicans failed to prove her guilty innumerous times, I'd argue that there's quite a bit of doubt.  They would've creamed their pants upon getting their hands on the kind of evidence against the subject that the Mueller report provides, but no such evidence existed in Hillary's case.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Considering it's "innocent until proven guilty" and Republicans failed to prove her guilty innumerous times, I'd argue that there's quite a bit of doubt.  They would've creamed their pants to get their hands on the kind of evidence against the subject that the Mueller report provides, but no such evidence existed in Hillary's case.


What's there to prove? The facts are already public and she admitted to her conduct. She did run a private e-mail server, she did run it in secrecy without any oversight, she did wipe it and she did order mountains of equipment to be destroyed. The negligence aspect of the case isn't and never was in question. She got off because Comey characterised her as an old lady with no understanding of what she was doing and claimed that she "didn't intend" to put national secrets at risk. The problem is that neither fact excuses her as far as the relevant statute is concerned. Comey overstepped his boundaries instead of relaying the results of his investigation's results to someone actually responsible for making the estimation on whether or not she should be prosecuted. Sending and receiving classified communications via insecure, unauthorised means is de facto a crime, whether she was aware of that or not is irrelevant, intent never enters the picture, it's not a prerequisite. I'm not even sure why intent is in question anyway - she didn't set the server up by accident, it's very clear to me that she intended to do so. Did you ever start an e-mail server by accident? _"Damn, I tripped over the doorstep and unintentionally built a server, silly me!"_ - likely story.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793



> *Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document*, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, *relating to the national defense*, *through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody* or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, *or having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody* or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
> 
> *Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.*


Now, I'm no lawyer, but I can read. Can Comey?


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> What's there to prove? The facts are already public and she admitted to her conduct. She did run a private e-mail server, she did run it in secrecy without any oversight, she did wipe it and she did order mountains of equipment to be destroyed. The negligence aspect of the case isn't and never was in question. She got off because Comey characterised her as an old lady with no understanding of what she was doing and that she "didn't intend" to put national secrets at risk.


You neglected to mention that her predecessor, Colin Powell, also used a private server and recommended she do the same.  Also of importance: the State Department servers she was meant to be using were woefully outdated and in fact were hacked during Sec. Clinton's tenure at the State Department.

Then there's the matter of Ivanka and Jared also currently using private e-mail servers.  Seems like it's become standard practice rather than something which is being actively punished.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> You neglected to mention that her predecessor, Colin Powell, also used a private server and recommended she do the same.  Also of importance: the State Department servers she was meant to be using were woefully outdated and in fact were hacked during Sec. Clinton's tenure at the State Department.
> 
> Then there's the matter of Ivanka and Jared also currently using private e-mail servers.  Seems like it's become standard practice rather than something which is being actively punished.


I would be perfectly happy with everyone doing this getting punished as the statute dictates, regardless of political affiliation, if the server is used for classified communication at any point in time. This isn't a partisan issue to me, it's law. Again, whataboutism is not a good strategy - if Powell is guilty of the same kind of negligent conduct then he too should be prosecuted for doing so.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I would be perfectly happy with everyone doing this getting punished as the statute dictates, regardless of political affiliation, if the server is used for classified communication at any point in time. This isn't a partisan issue to me, it's law. Again, whataboutism is not a good strategy - if Powell is guilty of the same kind of negligent conduct then he too should be prosecuted for doing so.


Clearly the issue runs deeper than the individual if the State Department servers are getting hacked far more often than private ones.  Somehow I'm not expecting a sweeping referendum on cybersecurity to come from the Trump administration, though.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Clearly the issue runs deeper than the individual if the State Department servers are getting hacked far more often than private ones.  Somehow I'm not expecting a sweeping referendum on cybersecurity to come from the Trump administration, though.


He's more focused on securing the border, to be fair. With that said, there has to be a point at which you say "no more", otherwise the law is meaningless. Either it's a crime or it isn't, you can't pick and choose. That, and it's not just the hackers you have to worry about. Do you want a Blackberry full of national secrets to get left behind in a hotel by a forgetful secretary of state? Or lost at an airport? Or plain stolen? I don't. The clause exists for a reason, it minimises the amount of things that can possibly go wrong to a minimum.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> He's more focused on securing the border, to be fair.


Cutting off all aid to South American countries has managed to do the exact opposite of make the border secure.  But then I get the feeling that was the point: to help escalate an already-brewing crisis.  Trump will surely call them all "Mexicans" too.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

I said it before, and I'll say it again: Whether or not Secretary Clinton committed a crime is irrelevant to whether or not Trump committed a crime.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> How can you obstruct something that doesn’t exist. What exactly was he obstructing?
> 
> So they didn’t charge any American with collusion and you are trying to get Trump for obstructing something that doesn’t exist on an investigation that should have never taken place in the first place because of lack of evidence.
> 
> ...


He obstructed the investigations.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> He obstructed the investigations.


It is unclear whether investigations performed by the Special Counsel or any previous investigations by the F.B.I. constitute criminal investigations. The statute regarding obstruction of justice clearly states that it concerns criminal investigations and due administration of justice. No investigation of such nature took place, the investigation had the objective of determining whether or not collusion took place, and later whether or not that former investigation was obstructed neither was, in and out of itself, an investigation that was meant to dispense any form of justice whatsoever. It is _still _unclear whether any action taken by the president would satisfy the statute, let alone constitute criminal obstruction of justice.

*EDIT: *Edited slightly for further clarity.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It is unclear whether investigations performed by the Special Counsel or any previous investigations by the F.B.I. constitute criminal investigations. The statute regarding obstruction of justice clearly states that it concerns criminal investigations and due administration of justice. No investigation of such nature took place, the investigation had the objective of determining whether or not a crime took place, it was not, in and out of itself, an investigation that was meant to dispense any form of justice whatsoever. It is _still _unclear whether any action taken by the president would satisfy the statute, let alone constitute criminal obstruction of justice.


We are talking about criminal investigations. People were indicted.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We are talking about criminal investigations. People were indicted.


And what does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you should read the relevant statute?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> And what does that have to do with anything? Perhaps you should read the relevant statute?


There's apparently no reasoning with you. I just told you everything you need to know with regard to this point. It was a criminal investigation Trump attempted to obstruct. The Mueller report is quite clear on this point.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> There's apparently no reasoning with you. I just told you everything you need to know with regard to this point. It was a criminal investigation Trump attempted to obstruct. The Mueller report is quite clear on this point.


You seem to be misunderstanding the statute. The initial investigation into Russian interference in the election was not a criminal investigation, it was a counterintelligence investigation not bound by the obstruction statute, which only concerns criminal investigations and the due administration of justice. It is unclear whether Trump *could've* criminally obstructed it if he tried because it doesn't fulfill the requirements of the statute. As such, it is unclear whether the _obstruction investigation itself_, which followed shortly, _had any merit to begin with_. Reasoning with me is fairly easily provided you actually read the statute before you make conclusory statements. Actual attorneys are split on this issue, let alone "keyboard lawyers".


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You seem to be misunderstanding the statute. The initial investigation into Russian interference in the election was not a criminal investigation, it was a counterintelligence investigation not bound by the obstruction statute, which only concerns criminal investigations and the due administration of justice. It is unclear whether Trump *could've* criminally obstructed it because it doesn't fulfill the requirements of the statute. As such, it is unclear whether the obstruction investigation itself, which followed shortly, had any merit to begin with. Reasoning with me is fairly easily provided you actually read the statute before you make conclusory statements. Actual attorneys are split on this issue, let alone "keyboard lawyers".


I'm referring to the big four (although I could point to six that satisfy this criteria):

Efforts to fire Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
Efforts to restrict Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
Tampering with McGahn and his testimony to a known grand jury criminal investigation.
Trump's tampering with Manafort's cooperation in a criminal investigation.
These are objectively obstruction of justice, and Mueller lays them out very clearly with the relevant statues cited.

I could list the other two, but they have their own problems related to intent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm referring to the big four (although I could point to six that satisfy this criteria):
> 
> Efforts to fire Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
> Efforts to restrict Mueller after it was known publicly to be a criminal investigation.
> ...


Trump could fire Mueller because he didn't like the tie he was wearing, he's the head of the executive. He didn't. As for the "tampering", I've addressed this before - this entire investigation was seen as bad PR by Trump, and as such he most certainly tried to put an end to it as quickly as humanly possible, and in the process of doing so he said a bunch of dumb stuff. I'm not terribly surprised, but do I consider that obstruction? Not in particular, I consider that the usual Trump behaviour. If anything, he wanted to accelerate the process so that the investigation reaches its conclusion without incriminating himself. Thankfully he has good aides who know better than him, politics and business sadly do not work the same way.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Trump could fire Mueller because he didn't like the tie he was wearing, he's the head of the executive.


Are you arguing that firing Mueller was not an obstructive act, or are you arguing there's no evidence of criminal intent? Pick a lane and stay there, or concede before moving on.

Regardless, it is an obstructive act, and there's evidence of intent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Are you arguing that firing Mueller was not an obstructive act, or are you arguing there's no evidence of criminal intent? Pick a lane and stay there, or concede before moving on.
> 
> Regardless, it is an obstructive act, and there's evidence of intent.


According to you. I can pick any lane I want, there are so many holes in all this that I can manage multitrack drifting fairly easily. All I see is circumstantial evidence. I'll happily take the AG's opinion on this rather than yours.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> According to you. I can pick any lane I want, there are so many holes in all this that I can manage multitrack drifting fairly easily. All I see is circumstantial evidence. I'll happily take the AG's opinion on this rather than yours.


If you're going to argue one thing and then shift to something else instead of defending the original topic, that's difficult to respond to. I don't necessarily feel like dealing with a scattershot approach to arguing. That's usually what someone does when the argument isn't very good.

You argued the firing of Mueller wasn't an obstructive act, but when I demonstrated otherwise, you shifted to obstructive intent as if it was evidence of not being an obstructive act. Whether or not you agree with me on substance, we can agree that I need to know which lane you're in to be able to respond. They are two completely different things. You can have an obstructive act with or without a nexus to an investigation and/or obstructive intent. The four I mentioned have all three. Barr and Mueller seemingly agree.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> We are talking about criminal investigations. People were indicted.


Which could’ve of been handled separately from Muller. You don’t need a Russia Collusion investigation for that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to argue one thing and then shift to something else instead of defending the original topic, that's difficult to respond to. I don't necessarily feel like dealing with a scattershot approach to arguing. That's usually what someone does when the argument isn't very good.
> 
> You argued the firing of Mueller wasn't an obstructive act, but when I demonstrated otherwise, you shifted to obstructive intent as if it was evidence of not being an obstructive act. Whether or not you agree with me on substance, we can agree that I need to know which lane you're in to be able to respond. They are two completely different things. You can have an obstructive act with or without a nexus to an investigation and/or obstructive intent. The four I mentioned have all three. Barr and Mueller seemingly agree.


You haven't "demonstrated" anything, actually. Barr and Mueller agree on one thing - that the president had interfered with the investigation in a non-official manner, which doesn't necessarily mean that he intended to obstruct it, or obstructed it at all. It's not a "scattershot" approach, I'm explaining to you certain holes in your reasoning as they come up. It's not even an argument per se since there's nothing to argue about - no prosecution is going forward, and it's unlikely that that's going to change anytime soon, if ever. As I mentioned before, I'm not particularly bothered by what happens to Trump once he's no longer president, his period of usefulness is his term.

*EDIT:* You also keep using the word "fired" in reference to Mueller - Mueller was never actually fired. You can tell by how he completed the report. If Trump wanted to fire him, he could've, at any point, and at his own discretion - he would've Nixonned himself if he did that. I haven't "argued that it wasn't an obstructive act" - it never happened, I couldn't argue that if I wanted to. As I said, he was frustrated and said a bunch of shit. At no point did he use his executive privilege to put an end to the investigation in progress.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to argue one thing and then shift to something else instead of defending the original topic, that's difficult to respond to. I don't necessarily feel like dealing with a scattershot approach to arguing. That's usually what someone does when the argument isn't very good.
> 
> You argued the firing of Mueller wasn't an obstructive act, but when I demonstrated otherwise, you shifted to obstructive intent as if it was evidence of not being an obstructive act. Whether or not you agree with me on substance, we can agree that I need to know which lane you're in to be able to respond. They are two completely different things. You can have an obstructive act with or without a nexus to an investigation and/or obstructive intent. The four I mentioned have all three. Barr and Mueller seemingly agree.


Trump was pissed because he believed the investigation was a hit job by a bunch of corrupt people. I can see why he wouldn’t like it.

You keep saying efforts efforts efforts but the investigation still finished. Him letting of steam they saw is not a criminal offense.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

This guy is a historian and he excellently breaks down the investigation.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You haven't "demonstrated" anything, actually. Barr and Mueller agree on one thing - that the president had interfered with the investigation in a non-official manner, which doesn't necessarily mean that he intended to obstruct it, or obstructed it at all. It's not a "scattershot" approach, I'm explaining to you certain holes in your reasoning as they come up. It's not even an argument per se since there's nothing to argue about - no prosecution is going forward, and it's unlikely that that's going to change anytime soon, if ever. As I mentioned before, I'm not particularly bothered by what happens to Trump once he's no longer president, his period of usefulness is his term.
> 
> *EDIT:* You also keep using the word "fired" in reference to Mueller - Mueller was never actually fired. You can tell by how he completed the report. If Trump wanted to fire him, he could've, at any point, and at his own discretion, at which point he would've Nixonned himself. I haven't "argued that it wasn't an obstructive act" - it never happened, I couldn't argue that if I wanted to. As I said, he was frustrated and said a bunch of shit. At no point did he use his executive privilege to put an end to the investigation in progress.


Whether or not prosecution is going forward is irrelevant to whether or not criminal obstruction occurred.

I also know Mueller was never fired, but that is what Trump attempted to do.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



SG854 said:


> Trump was pissed because he believed the investigation was a hit job by a bunch of corrupt people. I can see why he wouldn’t like it.
> 
> You keep saying efforts efforts efforts but the investigation still finished. Him letting of steam they saw is not a criminal offense.
> 
> ...


For at least four instances of obstruction, Mueller outlines evidence of criminal intent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Whether or not prosecution is going forward is irrelevant to whether or not criminal obstruction occurred.
> 
> I also know Mueller was never fired, but that is what Trump attempted to do.
> 
> ...


Why use the word "fired" then? And then use the hypothetical I posed as a bounce pad? Seems disingenuous, although that's your favourite word. You also seem to be forgetting that we read the same report? Mueller has never established intent, nor did he conclude that the acts were illegal, that's a complete fabrication. Just to be perfectly clear, the word "intent" is used on numerous pages, we're talking specifically about the intent to obstruct an investigation.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Why use the word "fired" then? And then use the hypothetical I posed as a bounce pad? Seems disingenuous, although that's your favourite word. You also seem to be forgetting that we read the same report? Mueller has never established intent, nor did he conclude that the acts were illegal, that's a complete fabrication.


I should have said attempted firing.

As for the report, Mueller didn't rule one way or the other because sitting presidents cannot be indicted. However, he described in the report what I outlined above, using phrases like "_would_ constitute," "substantial evidence," and "credible witness." That includes the topic of intent. Trump criminally obstructed justice.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 28, 2019)

I never even thought about getting an American citizenship until Trump took office.  Finally put in my application today.   Godspeed.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I should have said attempted firing.
> 
> As for the report, Mueller didn't rule one way or the other because sitting presidents cannot be indicted. However, he described in the report what I outlined above, using phrases like "_would_ constitute," "substantial evidence," and "credible witness." That includes the topic of intent. Trump criminally obstructed justice.


That's not at all why he ruled this way. He says it in the report, which I have open right in front of me:


> Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.


Mueller was not sure, on the basis of the evidence he's collected, whether the President criminally obstructed the investigation, meaning if he intentionally tried to alter its result, delay it or outright shut it down through corrupt means. He even wrote an entire section regarding whether or not investigating the matter further would impede the President's job. He left the decision on whether or not a criminal investigation should be opened to the AG, who promptly shut the idea down. We've known this since the report was published. Besides, we both know why this took so long - the longer the investigation the higher the chance that Trump does "something", it was always meant as a form of political entrapment, at least that's the way I see it. Some would love to see it continue indefinitely, but unfortunately the ride us over now. No crime was established, so any accusations should be prefaced with "allegedly" since they're pure conjecture.


Fugelmir said:


> I never even thought about getting an American citizenship until Trump took office.  Finally put in my application today.   Godspeed.


Good luck in your efforts to enter the country legally, Freedomlandia sounds like a wonderful place to live.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not at all why he ruled this way. He says it in the report, which I have open right in front of me:
> 
> Mueller was not sure, on the basis of the evidence he's collected, whether the President criminally obstructed the investigation, meaning if he intentionally tried to alter its result, delay it or outright shut it down through corrupt means. He even wrote an entire section regarding whether or not investigating the matter further would impede the President's job. He left the decision on whether or not a criminal investigation should be opened to the AG, who promptly shut the idea down. We've known this since the report was published.
> 
> Good luck in your efforts to enter the country legally, Freedomlandia sounds like a wonderful place to live.


We’ll see what happens to Assange to see how much freedom there is.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

SG854 said:


> We’ll see what happens to Assange to see how much freedom there is.


I'm not too worried about Mr.Wikileaks, but good point.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not at all why he ruled this way. He says it in the report, which I have open right in front of me:
> 
> Mueller was not sure, on the basis of the evidence he's collected, whether the President criminally obstructed the investigation, meaning if he intentionally tried to alter its result, delay it or outright shut it down through corrupt means. He even wrote an entire section regarding whether or not investigating the matter further would impede the President's job. He left the decision on whether or not a criminal investigation should be opened to the AG, who promptly shut the idea down. We've known this since the report was published.
> 
> Good luck in your efforts to enter the country legally, Freedomlandia sounds like a wonderful place to live.


It has been reported that "because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" is because of the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents. Nothing more. In other words, definitive proof of obstruction of justice would have resulted in the same judgment we got.

In addition, "if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state" means innocence would have been clearly stated.

To summarize:

Evidence of guilt = no judgement
Evidence of innocence = a judgement of innocence
This part at least is not controversial.

Edit: Mueller did leave the decision to the AG and/or Congress, but for the reason above.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> It has been reported that "because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment" is because of the Justice Department policy of not indicting sitting presidents. Nothing more. In other words, definitive proof of obstruction of justice would have resulted in the same judgment we got.
> 
> In addition, "if we had confidence after a
> thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state" means innocence would have been clearly stated.
> ...


That's not at all how the judgements are handled. 

There was no talk of guilt or innocence as there were no charges pressed against Trump. The point of the investigation was to determine whether charges should be pressed. You weren't going to get a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict from Mueller, that wasn't his job. I understand that the left expected Mueller to play the role of Santa and bring them an indictment in his big bag of gifts, but that's not how it works. *If* Mueller did find substantial evidence to suggest prosecution, he would've done so as, in his own words, he was entitled to do so and it would not prohibit the President from fulfilling his function - an investigation could've proceeded while Trump was serving his term and the indictment would've waited until the President's term was over, or until it was terminated via impeachment. That is, unless Mueller would like to now admit that he lied in the report, in which case he's more than welcome to participate in more "reporting" as he faces charges for misleading the AG and Congress. My goodness, did Mueller obstruct himself? I think I'm having an obstruction now!


----------



## SG854 (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not at all how the judgements are handled.
> 
> There was no talk of guilt or innocence as there were no charges pressed against Trump. The point of the investigation was to determine whether charges should be pressed. You weren't going to get a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict from Mueller, that wasn't his job. I understand that the left expected Mueller to play the role of Santa and bring them an indictment in his big bag of gifts, but that's not how it works. *If* Mueller did find substantial evidence to suggest prosecution, he would've done so as, in his own words, he was entitled to do so and it would not prohibit the President from fulfilling his function - an investigation could've proceeded while Trump was serving his term and the indictment would've waited until the President's term was over, or until it was terminated via impeachment. That is, unless Mueller would like to now admit that he lied in the report, in which case he's more than welcome to participate in more "reporting" as he faces charges for misleading the AG and Congress. My goodness, did Mueller obstruct himself? I think I'm having an obstruction now!


That reminds me.... This exists


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> That's not at all how the judgements are handled.
> 
> There was no talk of guilt or innocence as there were no charges pressed against Trump. The point of the investigation was to determine whether charges should be pressed. You weren't going to get a "guilty" or "innocent" verdict from Mueller, that wasn't his job. I understand that the left expected Mueller to play the role of Santa and bring them an indictment in his big bag of gifts, but that's not how it works. *If* Mueller did find substantial evidence to suggest prosecution, he would've done so as, in his own words, he was entitled to do so and it would not prohibit the President from fulfilling his function - an investigation could've proceeded while Trump was serving his term and the indictment would've waited until the President's term was over, or until it was terminated via impeachment. That is, unless Mueller would like to now admit that he lied in the report, in which case he's more than welcome to participate in more "reporting" as he faces charges for misleading the AG and Congress. My goodness, did Mueller obstruct himself? I think I'm having an obstruction now!


If you're going mischaracterize my positions again, I'm not interested. I can do the same thing: You clearly didn't read the report, because what you said here is untrue. I could have been civil and not potentially mischaracterized whether or not you read the report (the difference is I have evidence you didn't, while your projections of my position have little to do with fact), but why not?



> First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
> initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
> judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that "the indictment
> or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
> ...


In summary, there was never going to be a judgment of wrongdoing because of the aforementioned policy.



> Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
> it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President's term is permissible.
> 3 The OLC
> opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if
> ...


This is referring to the Mueller investigation itself, not an indictment and trial. Come on.



> Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
> Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
> an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
> threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person's conduct
> ...


This explains what I've already outlined numerous times about why it wouldn't be fair to Trump to conclude he committed a crime while also not indicting him.



> Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
> clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
> applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
> obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
> ...


If Trump were exonerated, they would say so.

Excuse formatting errors. I'm on my phone, and I've wasted enough time with this.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're going mischaracterize my positions again, I'm not interested. I can do the same thing: You clearly didn't read the report, because what you said here is untrue. I could have been civil and not potentially mischaracterized whether or not you read the report (the difference is I have evidence you didn't, while your projections of my position have little to do with fact), but why not?
> 
> In summary, there was never going to be a judgment of wrongdoing because of the aforementioned policy.
> 
> ...


As have I. I have the report right here, we're simply drawing different conclusions from what was written. Being prissy is not a good exit, but you're more than welcome to discontinue this exchange if you're so bothered by my approach. I'm merely relying on what was written in the official report, I'm not particularly bothered by hearsay from third-hand sources. I'm not interested in any post factum "reporting" that may be taking place while the stars of the show are enjoying their brief moment in the limelight.

Now, if your reading comprehension is sound, you will notice that "he would not make a determination on whether or not the President has committed a crime", which of course he wouldn't because he's not a judge. He does however reserve the right to declare the President's actions to be a "federal offense" where appropriate, which he hasn't done due to his concerns regarding fairness and the adversarial process of the justice system, which is indeed fair. I'm not particularly bothered by whether the report exonerates Trump or not because, as you're probably aware, the presumption of innocence principle allows me to simply state that he is innocent until proven guilty. Not that I need to pull that card out since, again, no charges were pressed. You're still a couple steps removed from your actual assertion, that being that the president has "committed crimes". I reiterate, that was not established, and there is no further investigation in progress to ascertain whether that's the case. In other words, he at best "allegedly committed crimes", you're welcome to use that term going forwards, but I'm not bothered either way.

I'm also not "mischaracterising your position", your position is very obvious to anyone, even the most casual observer.

Just to tie a nice bow on the conversation, I'll simply drop what Barr had to say about your supposed intent:


> "There is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks.


Perfectly reasonable explanation. To reiterate:

There was no agreement between Barr, Rosenstein and Mueller regarding the alleged obstruction
President Trump had a multitude of motivations besides corrupt intent to end the investigation as quickly as possible
He cooperated with the investigators every step of the way besides the few incidents named in the report, including transferring requested documents, allowing investigators to interview whomever they pleased
President Trump did not use his executive privilege to terminate the investigation or fire Mueller, and even if he did, he would still be exercising his constitutional right to do so
But yes, I suppose all this is inconclusive as, in contrast to Iran-Contra, we don't have a call for impeachment or any meaningful conclusion to the report, making it a complete dud, at least in my estimation.



SG854 said:


> That reminds me.... This exists.


The pun was not accidental, well done!


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> As have I. I have the report right here, we're simply drawing different conclusions from what was written. Being prissy is not a good exit, but you're more than welcome to discontinue this exchange if you're so bothered by my approach. I'm merely relying on what was written in the official report, I'm not particularly bothered by hearsay from third-hand sources. I'm not interested in any post factum "reporting" that may be taking place while the stars of the show are enjoying their brief moment in the limelight.
> 
> Now, if your reading comprehension is sound, you will notice that "he would not make a determination on whether or not the President has committed a crime", which of course he wouldn't because he's not a judge. He does however reserve the right to declare the President's actions to be a "federal offense" where appropriate, which he hasn't done due to his concerns regarding fairness and the adversarial process of the justice system, which is indeed fair. I'm not particularly bothered by whether the report exonerates Trump or not because, as you're probably aware, the presumption of innocence principle allows me to simply state that he is innocent until proven guilty. Not that I need to pull that card out since, again, no charges were pressed. You're still a couple steps removed from your actual assertion, that being that the president has "committed crimes". I reiterate, that was not established, and there is no further investigation in progress to ascertain whether that's the case. In other words, he at best "allegedly committed crimes", you're welcome to use that term going forwards, but I'm not bothered either way.
> 
> ...


If you're going to skip over the parts of the Mueller report regarding the substantial evidence for corrupted intent, I'm not sure what to do about it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> If you're going to skip over the parts of the Mueller report regarding the substantial evidence for corrupted intent, I'm not sure what to do about it


Who should I believe regarding this corrupt intent? Mueller? Barr? Rosenstein? Santa Claus? The report outlines a number of possibilities - it even features handy "alternative scenarios" which, in my estimation, make more sense. Take the Manafort case, for instance. Did the president truly intend to obstruct the due administration of justice or did he genuinely feel bad for him in the light of his indictment? The former is criminal, the latter is not, and it's hard to make a determination between the two. Going by what he said publicly, it seems to be the latter, and your President is exceedingly public in terms of his musings. Such questions can be raised about each and every supposed "corrupt intention" the President might've had, which is why I explicitly stated that corrupt intent was not established a couple pages ago. You insist that it has been established, and I feel like we're reading two different documents here. Just to be more specific, I'm skeptical of any "corrupt intent" allegations because I don't see what the President would have to gain from all this. It seems to me that doing absolutely nothing would've afforded him victory either way, which he probably knew from the start, so where's the corruption?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Who should I believe regarding this corrupt intent? Mueller? Barr? Rosenstein? Santa Claus? The report outlines a number of possibilities - it even features handy "alternative scenarios" which, in my estimation, make more sense. Take the Manafort case, for instance. Did the president truly intend to obstruct the due administration of justice or did he genuinely feel bad for him in the light of his indictment? The former is criminal, the latter is not, and it's hard to make a determination between the two. Going by what he said publicly, it seems to be the latter, and your President is exceedingly public in terms of his musings. Such questions can be raised about each and every supposed "corrupt intention" the President might've had, which is why I explicitly stated that corrupt intent was not established a couple pages ago. You insist that it has been estaished, and I feel like we're reading two different documents here.


Barr mischaracterized the report, so already his trust level is pretty low. He also changed his story to instead be about the fact that the obstruction failed, not because of lack of intent.

As for the obstruction of justice related to Manafort, you are right that there are alternative explanations. That's also only true of the influencing of the jury, not any of the big four I've previously mentioned. Manafort's cooperation is another story, and there are also three more examples of obstruction of justice in addition that don't include alternative explanations. I'm not interested in debating the examples of obstruction that are ambiguous. See my previous post on the big four where Mueller provides obstructive acts, a nexus to a criminal investigation, and evidence of intent.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 28, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Barr mischaracterized the report, so already his trust level is pretty low. He also changed his story to instead be about the fact that the obstruction failed, not because of lack of intent.
> 
> As for the obstruction of justice related to Manafort, you are right that there are alternative explanations. That's also only true of the influencing of the jury, not any of the big four I've previously mentioned. Manafort's cooperation is another story, and there are also three more examples of obstruction of justice in addition that don't include alternative explanations. I'm not interested in debating the examples of obstruction that are ambiguous. See my previous post on the big four where Mueller provides obstructive acts, a nexus to a criminal investigation, and evidence of intent.


My issue with this exchange is that I'd rather talk with you than with Mueller. I have the report, I know what he had to say. I'd rather hear what you have to say - what's your version of how the events unfolded? Walls of text are nice and dandy, but a little bit barren and uninteresting. You seem to be very... Uptight about all this, for lack of a better term. I keep pinching and prodding, but I'm not getting your perspective, I'm getting quotes from the report that I can just read again at my leisure - it's a tad frustrating. Explain to me what you think the President had to gain from obstructing a counterintelligence investigation (which I maintain that he didn't obstruct) which ultimately came up with nothing (as he suspected it would) and then obstructing the supposed obstruction investigation which wouldn't have even taken place if he didn't fire Comey (whom he had full constitutional right to fire)? We live in one of two worlds - either Trump is a master of manipulation or, more likely, he doesn't really know how those investigations work and he was bumbling about saying anything he had on his mind at the time while simultaneously complying with the SC's requests. It's one or the other, it can't be both, and from a bird's eye view it seems to me that it's the latter. I can happily accuse him of being ignorant regarding the possible consequences of what he says or does, but ultimately all I see is a poor attempt at PR. The other question I have for you is why change focus now? Until 5 minutes ago everyone was focused on the collusion narrative, but now we're switching to collusion. I wouldn't be so bold as to imply motivation, but does the goal justify the means, if you catch my drift?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> My issue with this exchange is that I'd rather talk with you than with Mueller. I have the report, I know what he had to say. I'd rather hear what you have to say - what's your version of how the events unfolded? Walls of text are nice and dandy, but a little bit barren and uninteresting. You seem to be very... Uptight about all this, for lack of a better term. I keep pinching and prodding, but I'm not getting your perspective, I'm getting quotes from the report that I can just read again at my leisure - it's a tad frustrating. Explain to me what you think the President had to gain from obstructing a counterintelligence investigation (which I maintain that he didn't obstruct) which ultimately came up with nothing (as he suspected it would) and then obstructing the supposed obstruction investigation which wouldn't have even taken place if he didn't fire Comey (whom he had full constitutional right to fire)? We live in one of two worlds - either Trump is a master of manipulation or, more likely, he doesn't really know how those investigations work and he was bumbling about saying anything that he had on his mind at the time while simultaneously complying with the SC's requests. It's one or the other, it can't be both, and from a bird's eye view it seems to me that it's the latter. I can happily accuse him of being ignorant regarding the possible consequences of what he says or does, but ultimately all I see is a poor attempt at PR. The other question I have for you is why change focus now? Until 5 minutes ago everyone was focused on the collusion narrative, but now we're switching to collusion. I wouldn't be so bold as to imply motivation, but does the goal justify the means, if you catch my drift?


The Mueller report describes what he had to gain and provides evidence for why Trump did what he did.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The Mueller report describes what he had to gain and provides evidence for why Trump did what he did.


Weird deflect, but that's fair.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> The Mueller report describes what he had to gain and provides evidence for why Trump did what he did.


I don’t think people that want impeachment are thinking this all the way through.

The biggest fact is there was no underlying collusion. The republican argument is that what was he trying to obstruct if there was no collusion. And their argument is more potent then the Democratic argument. They’ll point out that the original argument was Collusion. And now the goal post was shifted to obstruction. And what a weird way to have a presidency ended, obstructing a crime he didn’t commit with an investigation that shouldn’t have taken place to begin with with. People will empathize with Trump instead.

Look at Clinton. The Democratic Party called out the Republican Party as a bunch of whiners for calling for impeachment because Bill lied about a question (Monica Lewinsky) he should have never been asked to begin with. This boosted his popularity, and will likely do the same for Trump. Impeachment is a step, there still has to be a long process before you see him removed. And will likely not come into fruition with a Republican controlled senate and with many Democrats against impeachment. Numbers are not on your side.

It doesn’t matter what you think, or if you do or do not buy any argument republicans make. What matters is what Republicans think and what the American people think. Even if you think on principle it should be done, you have to ask yourself is it worth it. You have to think of the consequences of impeachment over obstruction. And nothing will rile up his supporters more and get them to vote for him in 2020 than this and increase his approval rating. You’re so close to the next election anyway, and Mike Pence? Do dems really want to gift wrap him another victory. They are not thinking this through.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It doesn’t matter what you think, or if you do or do not buy any argument republicans make. What matters is what Republicans think and what the American people think. Even if you think on principle it should be done, you have to ask yourself is it worth it. You have to think of the consequences of impeachment over obstruction. And nothing will rile up his supporters more and get them to vote for him in 2020 than this and increase his approval rating. You’re so close to the next election anyway, and Mike Pence? Do dems really want to gift wrap him another victory. They are not thinking this through.


I think you're not thinking this through.  Trump is going to have his base riled up to the maximum for 2020 regardless of what Democrats do.  "Riling them up" does nothing to increase their numbers, though.  What's more important for Democrats is getting their own voters to the polls, and impeachment would show that Dem leadership has the strength of their convictions.



SG854 said:


> Look at Clinton. The Democratic Party called out the Republican Party as a bunch of whiners for calling for impeachment because Bill lied about a question (Monica Lewinsky) he should have never been asked to begin with. This boosted his popularity, and will likely do the same for Trump.


You've got that completely wrong.  Clinton's approval ratings went down after impeachment, regardless of the fact that he was cleared of all charges.  And obviously the Democrats lost in 2000, or at least it came close enough for the courts to decide.

This shouldn't be a politically-motivated decision regardless.  Trump has made it clear he doesn't intend to allow Congress to do their jobs.  Impeachment is the only way to get it through his thick skull that he isn't a king and he doesn't have absolute power.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> I think you're not thinking this through.  Trump is going to have his base riled up to the maximum for 2020 regardless of what Democrats do.  "Riling them up" does nothing to increase their numbers, though.  What's more important for Democrats is getting their own voters to the polls, and impeachment would show that Dem leadership has the strength of their convictions.


They are not just riling up his base but others also and pushing people to vote Republican instead. They are increasing numbers. Fox News is more popular than many other news outlets right now. They got a huge boost over the Mueller Report. Many left wing outlets dropped in ratings because of it. Right wing like Ben Shapiro is gaining popularity. The constant de-platforming of republicans which the ceo of Twitter admits is happening is making them look victimized and helping them gather supporters.

If you can’t see this then I don’t know what else to tell you. And people not seeing this are going to push for the wrong things. Impeachment over obstruction doesn’t show strength in convictions. They instead come off as a bunch of desperate people that won’t shut up about it. You have to step outside and look at this from an outside view. Pay attention to what others are saying. And plan accordingly, but they are not doing that.

Dems are in a pickle right now, to I peach or not impeach. What consequences will come from either action. And what’s the better route to take.

Me not thinking this through? I did call out months ago that they weren’t going to find any collusion, I even made a thread about it, and I was right. The evidence didn’t stack up which is why I made that thread with confidence. It’s not hard using deductive reasoning and common sense. And looking at evidences from multiple spots and not just one place. What’s clear night and day to me is a surprise to many people. I am doing my best to think this through and all the possible scenarios and I think impeachment over obstruction is a death sentence.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Xzi said:


> I think you're not thinking this through.  Trump is going to have his base riled up to the maximum for 2020 regardless of what Democrats do.  "Riling them up" does nothing to increase their numbers, though.  What's more important for Democrats is getting their own voters to the polls, and impeachment would show that Dem leadership has the strength of their convictions.
> 
> 
> You've got that completely wrong.  Clinton's approval ratings went down after impeachment, regardless of the fact that he was cleared of all charges.  And obviously the Democrats lost in 2000, or at least it came close enough for the courts to decide.
> ...


Not true his approval rating went up after impeachment the highest it’s ever been. From CNN in the 90s. Not only that Republicans favorability went down. History should be a lesson.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They are not just riling up his base but others also and pushing people to vote Republican instead. They are increasing numbers. Fox News is more popular than many other news outlets right now. They got a huge boost over the Mueller Report. Many left wing outlets dropped in ratings because of it. Right wing like Ben Shapiro is gaining popularity. The constant de-platforming of republicans which the ceo of Twitter admits is happening is making them look victimized and helping them gather supporters.
> 
> If you can’t see this then I don’t know what else to tell you. And people not seeing this are going to push for the wrong things. Impeachment over obstruction doesn’t show strength in convictions. They instead come off as a bunch of desperate people that won’t shut up about it. You have to step outside and look at this from an outside view. Pay attention to what others are saying. And plan accordingly, but they are not doing that.
> 
> ...


I've been standing in line for the latest iPeach for days myself! 

On a serious note, I fully expect this to bolster the turnout for Trump, both from Republicans and from the undecided. Most people were interested in one thing and one thing only - whether Trump colluded with Russia. The report says he didn't, so that's case open and shut. The sudden shift of focus from Trump-Russia cronyism to obstruction seems like a desperate move to the average voter - "we couldn't get you on A, so we'll get you on B" kind of deal. Desperation is a hard sell to a voter, I sure hope the Dems have something better to sell besides "We Hate Trump" this time around or they're in serious trouble. I listened to Joe's ad yesterday and it was just embarrassing.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They are not just riling up his base but others also and pushing people to vote Republican instead.


Nonsense.  Let me know when party registration for Republicans jumps by a statistically significant margin and then we can talk about it as an actual issue.  Fox News grandpas aren't multiplying by budding.  2018 was a landslide victory for Dems, and they rarely win mid-terms so thoroughly.



SG854 said:


> Not true his approval rating went up after impeachment the highest it’s ever been. From a CNN in the 90s. Not only that Republicans favorability went down.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/20/impeachment.poll/
Fair enough.  Then again, they were trying to impeach him over a _consensual blowjob_.  Or maybe it was for cheating on his wife?  A laughable notion now, given the whole Stormy Daniels saga.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Nonsense.  Let me know when party registration for Republicans jumps by a statistically significant margin and then we can talk about it as an actual issue.  Fox News grandpas aren't multiplying by budding.  2018 was a landslide victory for Dems, and they rarely win mid-terms so thoroughly.
> 
> Fair enough.  Then again, they were trying to impeach him over a _consensual blowjob_.  Or maybe it was for cheating on his wife?  A laughable notion now, given the whole Stormy Daniels saga.


You know full well what Clinton was impeached for, but credit where credit is due, it was a similar impeachment trap to the one set before Trump.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I've been standing in line for the latest iPeach for days myself!
> 
> On a serious note, I fully expect this to bolster the turnout for Trump, both from Republicans and from the undecided. Most people were interested in one thing and one thing only - whether Trump colluded with Russia. The report says he didn't, so that's case open and shut. The sudden shift of focus from Trump-Russia cronyism to obstruction seems like a desperate move to the average voter - "we couldn't get you on A, so we'll get you on B" kind of deal. Desperation is a hard sell to a voter, I sure hope the Dems have something better to sell besides "We Hate Trump" this time around or they're in serious trouble. I listened to Joe's ad yesterday and it was just embarrassing.


They are focusing on the wrong things.

They focus on the dumbest one which is Russia collusion. They are probably better off focusing on Yemen and Emoluments clause, they can go after impeachment on these things and likely won’t boost his approval rating. Yemen there’s a genocide happening so it’ll resonate more with Americans. But they go after the wrong things. They keep going on about Russia.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> They are focusing on the wrong things.
> 
> They focus on the dumbest one which is Russia collusion. They are probably better off focusing on Yemen and Emoluments clause, they can go after impeachment on these things and not likely won’t boost his approval rating. Yemen there’s a genocide happening so it’ll resonate more with Americans. But they go after the wrong things. They keep going on about Russia.


I don't think it would. The Trump platform has always been America First, his core group of supporters give zero damns about what happens outside of the borders of the continental United States.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You know full well what Clinton was impeached for, but credit where credit is due, it was a similar imoeachment trap to the one set before Trump.


Oh you're right, holy shit.  He was impeached for _lying_.  Just makes it all the more hilarious that Republicans are so against impeaching a guy that lies hundreds of times per day.



SG854 said:


> They focus on the dumbest one which is Russia collusion. They are probably better off focusing on Yemen and Emoluments clause, they can go after impeachment on these things and likely won’t boost his approval rating. Yemen there’s a genocide happening so it’ll resonate more with Americans. But they go after the wrong things. They keep going on about Russia.


You know that Democrats can lay out as many articles of impeachment as they'd like, right?  Including support for the war in Yemen against the will of the House and Senate, emoluments, obstruction, his millions of lies to the American people, and everything else.  It doesn't have to be limited to any one thing.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh you're right, holy shit.  He was impeached for _lying_.  Just makes it all the more hilarious that Republicans are so against impeaching a guy that lies hundreds of times per day.
> 
> 
> You know that Democrats can lay out as many articles of impeachment as they'd like, right?  Including support for the war in Yemen against the will of the House and Senate, emoluments, obstruction, his millions of lies to the American people, and everything else.  It doesn't have to be limited to any one thing.


The main focus is Russia. You hear about Russia more then anything. Russia Collusion is their main platform right now. They are really not focusing much on the other ones.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Oh you're right, holy shit.  He was impeached for _lying_.  Just makes it all the more hilarious that Republicans are so against impeaching a guy that lies hundreds of times per day.
> 
> You know that Democrats can lay out as many articles of impeachment as they'd like, right?  Including support for the war in Yemen against the will of the House and Senate, emoluments, obstruction, his millions of lies to the American people, and everything else.  It doesn't have to be limited to any one thing.


Lying under oath before the grand jury and tweeting are not exactly in the same league. As far as the articles of impeachment are concerned, we're all aware of how many attempts Democrats will sink to, it's not like they haven't tried already.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> The main focus is Russia. You hear about Russia more then anything. Russia Collusion is there main platform right now. They are really not focusing much on the other ones.


It doesn't matter what the main focus of the media is, impeachment would be far-reaching in scope.  There's certainly no shortage of ethical and legal violations committed by the Trump administration to be recalled.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It doesn't matter what the main focus of the media is, impeachment would be far-reaching in scope.  There's certainly no shortage of ethical and legal violations committed by the Trump administration to be recalled.


It does to the voting public


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It does to the voting public


Okay?  And the voting public would get to see the impeachment proceedings televised.  So they'd see first-hand all these different articles laid out, and that it isn't about just _one_ issue.  That's kind of the idea, make people realize the scope of all this.  Because most won't simply by reading the facts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It does to the voting public


Don't worry, we can always bus new voters in, not a problem, comrade!

On a serious note, "we hate Trump" was the slogan last time and it failed big time, it's not sufficient. The Dems need a platform that will resonate with the people.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> On a serious note, "we hate Trump" was the slogan last time and it failed big time, it's not sufficient. The Dems need a platform that will resonate with the people.


Democrats can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.  It is possible to both shine a light on all of the Trump administration's atrocities while also promoting the benefits of our own platform.  Ultimately Trump will try to promise everything and the kitchen sink just like he did last election, so Dems just need someone willing to call him out on his bullshit.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 29, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Okay?  And the voting public would get to see the impeachment proceedings televised.  So they'd see first-hand all these different articles laid out, and that it isn't about just _one_ issue.  That's kind of the idea, make people realize the scope of all this.  Because most won't simply by reading the facts.


Not with Russia drowning everything out. 

Presidents doing bad things isn’t anything new. Bush and Obama also did many bad things. This is kind of expected of our presidents now since elections are bought off. Trump isn’t unique. 

Trump becoming president was an unexpected blow to the establishment. Never Trumpers Republicans didn’t want him and did opposition research on him then gave up, which then the DNC picked it back up and continued with the Steele dossier. The DNC didn’t want him 
for obvious reasons. You aren’t going to get better results voting for establishment dems.

The only anti establishment dems I can see is Bernie, maybe Yang and Telsi. Bernie got screwed out of the primaries. And establishment dems are doing it again right now with opposition research on him.



Foxi4 said:


> Don't worry, we can always bus new voters in, not a problem, comrade!
> 
> On a serious note, "we hate Trump" was the slogan last time and it failed big time, it's not sufficient. The Dems need a platform that will resonate with the people.


Hate Trump is not a platform. I’m trying to give Dems advice to help them. Whether or not they take it is up to them.


----------



## Xzi (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Not with Russia drowning everything out.


So you're just ignoring the fact that I told you there would be a lot of different articles of impeachment, and Russia probably wouldn't be mentioned once while they were being laid out.  Okay then.



SG854 said:


> Presidents doing bad things isn’t anything new.


Neither is impeachment as a consequence of presidents doing "bad things."



SG854 said:


> Trump becoming president was an unexpected blow to the establishment.


Bullshit, the establishment is loving his corporate tax cuts.  They get to pillage the economy before it all comes crashing down again under the weight of de-regulation, tariffs, and other stupid economic moves made by this administration.



SG854 said:


> The only anti establishment dems I can see is Bernie, maybe Yang and Telsi. Bernie got screwed out of the primaries. And establishment dems are doing it again right now with opposition research on him.


On that we agree, but it's the political establishment on both sides of the aisle that hate Bernie.  Still, I'm holding out some hope that he can overcome it all this time around.  His name recognition is better than it was in 2016, and his policies transcend party lines to some extent.



SG854 said:


> Hate Trump is not a platform. I’m trying to give Dems advice to help them. Whether or not they take it is up to them.


It's not about hate, it's about justice.  If Republicans want to position themselves as the anti-justice party, that's fine with me.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Weird deflect, but that's fair.


You said you'd rather talk to me than read the Mueller report, but you need to read/re-read the Mueller report.



SG854 said:


> I don’t think people that want impeachment are thinking this all the way through.
> 
> The biggest fact is there was no underlying collusion. The republican argument is that what was he trying to obstruct if there was no collusion. And their argument is more potent then the Democratic argument. They’ll point out that the original argument was Collusion. And now the goal post was shifted to obstruction. And what a weird way to have a presidency ended, obstructing a crime he didn’t commit with an investigation that shouldn’t have taken place to begin with with. People will empathize with Trump instead.
> 
> ...


I never said I _wanted_ impeachment.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I never said I _wanted_ impeachment.


You wanted a different outcome of 2016, this much is clear. The methods of "correcting the outcome" you support? Underhanded, if I'm generous. I have other terms for when I'm not in a good mood.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> You wanted a different outcome of 2016, this much is clear. The methods of "correcting the outcome" you support? Underhanded, if I'm generous. I have other terms for when I'm not in a good mood.


Again, stop articulating positions that are not mine. We can't have a conversation if you're arguing against someone who isn't me.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Again, stop articulating positions that are not mine. We can't have a conversation if you're arguing against someone who isn't me.


I very much doubt that you were rooting for Trump.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I very much doubt that you were rooting for Trump.


No, but the rest of your post (and many of your other posts) mischaracterize my positions. It's disingenuous, but I understand why you wouldn't want to argue with my actual positions.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> No, but the rest of your post (and many of your other posts) mischaracterize my positions. It's disingenuous, but I understand why you wouldn't want to argue with my actual positions.


To be honest, this way is much funnier.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 29, 2019)

I think Trump has a very excellent chance of winning.  On name recognition alone, even those who disagree with his policy would pick him for that reason.

Given that, the onus is more on the opposition to convince us that he's not ideal.  I don't think anyone here put forth anything other than the CNN talking points against him.

Maybe try something else, it's really not effective and the more you push it, the more people whose minds might change will ignore what you say.

At this point, the smartest thing the democrats could do is probably vet another celebrity like Oprah to run against him.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 29, 2019)

Yes, a popularity contest. Let's not pick people that are actually fit for the job.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> To be honest, this way is much funnier.


We have fundamentally different goals.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> You said you'd rather talk to me than read the Mueller report, but you need to read/re-read the Mueller report.
> 
> 
> I never said I _wanted_ impeachment.


It kind of seemed that way since you were laying down ways for Trump to be impeached and never articulated that you didn’t want it. So someone can think your were for it.

You keep saying your positions are being mischaracterized but I don’t even know what your positions are. If some people are not understanding your positions then it’s probably because you are not explaining them well.


So let me see if I get this right. You don’t want impeachment now but you do want to see it after he left office right? Either if it’s 2020 or 2024.

So far I’ve seen people address your points when it comes to the Mueller report, that’s how it looks to me, and I’m not talking about when they attack your character, like saying you suffer from TDS for example. I’m talking about what seems like your actual points. You keep saying your argument is being misrepresented but people are really not understanding your interpretation of the Mueller Report.

Your counter argument boils down to “that’s not how I see it with the wording.” People can’t even settle on how to interpret the report. Which is why your point or your interpretation isn’t being addressed, because they don’t think your interpretation is right. So people are just talking past each other.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Yes, a popularity contest. Let's not pick people that are actually fit for the job.


It's been a long, long time since the president played an important political function - they're supposed to look good and give interviews, might as well elect a professional entertainer.


Lacius said:


> We have fundamentally different goals.


My goal is almost always entertainment - there is no other reason to have this conversation since we have no impact on the events. I don't think it's productive for me to try to explain why Trump can fire his immediate underlings like Comey or Mueller, or reconsider and not fire them. I also don't see the point in explaining why Trump is entitled to talk to McGhan, the White House Council. Or to Cohen, his former lawyer. Or anybody else involved in the investigation. Neither of those conversations would be fruitful since your default position is that he _can't_ whereas in reality he merely _shouldn't_. It's not illegal, it's bad optics. Your "big point" number 2 is so general that I don't even know how to address it - to you just about anything impedes investigations, so it's not so much a point as it is a complaint.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It kind of seemed that way since you were laying down ways for Trump to be impeached and never articulated that you didn’t want it. So someone can think your were for it.
> 
> You keep saying your positions are being mischaracterized but I don’t even know what your positions are. If some people are not understanding your positions then it’s probably because you are not explaining them well.
> 
> ...


I haven't said anything about my political beliefs nor what I want to happen. I've only discussed the facts. Many responses to my posts make assessments about my political beliefs, desires, and character that are absurd, instead of addressing the content of my posts.



Foxi4 said:


> It's been a long, long time since the president played an important political function - they're supposed to look good and give interviews, might as well elect a professional entertainer.
> My goal is almost always entertainment - there is no other reason to have this conversation since we have no impact on the events. I don't think it's productive for me to try to explain why Trump can fire his immediate underlings like Comey or Mueller, or reconsider and not fire them. I also don't see the point in explaining why Trump is entitled to talk to McGhan, the White House Council. Or to Cohen, his former lawyer. Or anybody else involved in the investigation. Neither of those conversations would be fruitful since your default position is that he _can't_ whereas in reality he merely _shouldn't_. It's not illegal, it's bad optics. Your "big point" number 2 is so general that I don't even know how to address it - to you just about anything impedes investigations, so it's not so much a point as it is a complaint.


Entertainment is great, but when you clown around and mischaracterize my views, there's going to be a disconnect in our discourse that makes talking to you not worth the effort.

Edit: Certain mischaracterizations are also insulting.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I haven't said anything about my political beliefs nor what I want to happen. I've only discussed the facts.
> 
> 
> Entertainment is great, but when you clown around and mischaracterize my views, there's going to be a disconnect in our discourse that makes talking to you not worth the effort.


I forgot that it's only serious business with you. 

He raises a good point though - you can't rely in mind readery if you want to have a discussion that doesn't "disconnect". Since your motivation is unclear _(ha!)_, it's talking to you that's not worth the effort. I can _only "_mischaracterise" your views since you refuse to present them.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> I forgot that it's only serious business with you.
> 
> He raises a good point though - you can't rely in mind readery if you want to have a discussion that doesn't "disconnect". Since your motivation is unclear _(ha!)_, it's talking to you that's not worth the effort.


My motivation is to talk about the facts of the Mueller investigation. I don't think it's my fault if that wasn't clear.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> My motivation is to talk about the facts of the Mueller investigation. I don't think it's my fault if that wasn't clear.


There's really not much to talk about then, how is this discussion supposed to be in any way interesting if we're all supposed to be either Don Lemon or Tucker Carlson?


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> There's really not much to talk about then, how is this discussion supposed to be in any way interesting if we're all supposed to be either Don Lemon or Tucker Carson?


I don't think the threshold for whether or not a worthwhile conversation about the Mueller investigation can take place is whether or not we mischaracterize the views of each other in an effort to create entertaining and humorous drama.

I'm here to have a conversation about the Mueller investigation and correct some of the falsehoods people have posted. It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that. I'm also uninterested in dealing with people who mischaracterize my views and my character when they're losing.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I don't think the threshold for whether or not a worthwhile conversation about the Mueller investigation can take place is whether or not we mischaracterize the views of each other in an effort to create entertaining and humorous drama.
> 
> I'm here to have a conversation about the Mueller investigation and correct some of the falsehoods people have posted. It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that. I'm also uninterested in dealing with people who mischaracterize my views and my character when they're losing.


Losing? Oh, that's rich. 

You... Carry on thinking that. Talk about delusions of grandure. We'll put that on the shelf with other delusions, it will be in good company.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Losing? Oh, that's rich.
> 
> You... Carry on thinking that. Talk about delusions of grandure. We'll put that on the shelf with other delusions, it will be in good company.


Did I _hit a nerve_?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Did I _hit a nerve_?


Not in particular, no. You've always ridden on a horse two sizes too large for yourself, this surprises no one. I just find it very humorous that your conclusion from this exchange is that there's a victory to be had, and on top of that, you're convinced that you've won. I think you're confusing a discussion with a debate. Not that it matters, it's just a little silly.


----------



## Fugelmir (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Did I _hit a nerve_?



Foxi makes the most consistently sensible posts.  I think he definitely has a better handle on the situation than you or xzi.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> Not in particular, no. You've always ridden on a horse two sizes too large for yourself, this surprises no one.


I'm honestly not interested in personal attacks, particularly as a way to avoid defending bad arguments.



Foxi4 said:


> Not in particular, no. You've always ridden on a horse two sizes too large for yourself, this surprises no one. I just find it very humorous that your conclusion from this exchange is that there's a victory to be had, and on top of that, you're convinced that you've won. I think you're confusing a discussion with a debate. Not that it matters, it's just a little silly.


My point was that you and I have had disagreements, and I believe my points have been more consistent with the facts. There were also times you were objectively wrong. It wasn't much later that you started resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to the substance of my posts, but I don't blame you.



Fugelmir said:


> Foxi makes the most consistently sensible posts.  I think he definitely has a better handle on the situation than you or xzi.


All I can say is that's surprising, given what I said above.

Edit: I was also referencing when Foxi said the same thing earlier. I'm not attempting to bait anyone, unlike some.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I'm honestly not interested in personal attacks, particularly as a way to avoid defending bad arguments.
> 
> 
> My point was that you and I have had disagreements, and I believe my points have been more consistent with the facts. There were also times you were objectively wrong. It wasn't much later that you started resorting to personal attacks instead of responding to the substance of my posts, but I don't blame you.
> ...


So, in short.


You have no personal views on the case, except for the ones you do have, which you will not disclose so that anyone who catches you slipping can just be accused of "mischaracterising you"
You have a magical "Big Four" instances of supposed obstruction and anyone telling you that the President was entitled to doing any of the things listed by the virtue of his position is just defending a bad argument
This is a discussion, not a debate, but it's a special discussion with winners and losers
No fun is allowed, only facts
The fact that no prosecution is going forward is irrelevant
I think I got that right. Sounds like a whale of a good time.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> So, in short.
> 
> 
> You have no personal views on the case, except for the ones you do have, which you will not disclose so that anyone who catches you slipping can just be accused of "mischaracterising you"
> ...


Sounds more like a whale of mischaracterizations to me.

I have personal views, but you're making bold and untrue assumptions about what mine are.
If you want to talk about how the big four are not actually examples of criminal obstruction, please do. I've been waiting for you to get back on topic.
If you want to argue the semantics of me conflating "losing" with "making a bad argument," I'm not particularly interested in that distraction.
Fun is allowed, but I prefer not to waste my time responding to personal attacks.
The fact that no prosecution is currently going forward is indeed irrelevant to whether or not Trump criminally obstructed justice, yes. It's also irrelevant to whether or not he will be prosecuted or impeached later.
Some of your points above were pretty misleading and disengenuous.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 29, 2019)

Lacius said:


> Sounds more like a whale of mischaracterizations to me.
> 
> I have personal views, but you're making bold and untrue assumptions about what mine are.
> If you want to talk about how the big four are not actually examples of criminal obstruction, please do. I've been waiting for you to get back on topic.
> ...


It seems that everything I say is either a mischaracterisation, a distraction, a personal attack or it's disingenuous. That makes it a little hard for me to respond, to be perfectly honest - it is mighty convenient though. I think this concludes this year's chat with you, I can cross it off my list. I've already addressed your points, you just didn't accept my response as valid, which is fine by me. We'll talk in a year's time again, like we usually do - I think we've been dominating the thread long enough and I want to let others speak their mind instead of just spectating the bloodsports. It's been a pleasure, as always.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It seems that everything I say is either a mischaracterisation, a distraction, a personal attack or it's disingenuous.


You don't have to do these things.


----------



## SG854 (Apr 30, 2019)

Lacius said:


> I don't think the threshold for whether or not a worthwhile conversation about the Mueller investigation can take place is whether or not we mischaracterize the views of each other in an effort to create entertaining and humorous drama.
> 
> I'm here to have a conversation about the Mueller investigation and correct some of the falsehoods people have posted. It doesn't take a mind-reader to know that. I'm also uninterested in dealing with people who mischaracterize my views and my character when they're losing.


I don’t see any of your post’s as winning. And he did address your Big 4. You just didn’t accept them.

Obstruction of Justice has to be an illegal act. It’s not illegal if Trump acts within his authority that’s acceptable within Article 2 of the constitution. It is legal and authorized for him to fire the FBI director, he had constitutional authority to fire James Comey.

This is different from Nixon because Nixon acted outside of his authority, paying hush money, ordering people to lie to the FBI. If Trump told people to lie to the grand jury that would be obstruction. But him telling people to write letters and deliver messages is completely legal.



Don Mcgahn is not obstruction of justice because he didn’t tell him to lie to a government official. Trump telling him to lie in general is not obstruction. No where does it say in the law that it’s a crime to lie to the media. Only if it’s to government official like the FBI then it’s a crime. Every single politician we have lies about something. Not only that, every human has told a lie or told a white lie about something in their life.

If it was a crime for a general lie then all politicians will be out of office. And Trump will be Obstructing Justice or be considered a criminal every day every time he speaks. Like “Jobs are up and unemployment is down because of me.” Type stuff he says.

It’s only to a grand jury under oath that it’s obstruction. Lying to the media and the people. That’s called being a politician. It’s immoral what Trump did but it’s not illegal. And his aids didn’t act on what he said. Asking and doing are 2 different things.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 30, 2019)

SG854 said:


> I don’t see any of your post’s as winning. And he did address your Big 4. You just didn’t accept them.
> 
> Obstruction of Justice has to be an illegal act. It’s not illegal if Trump acts within his authority that’s acceptable within Article 2 of the constitution. It is legal and authorized for him to fire the FBI director, he had constitutional authority to fire James Comey.
> 
> ...


First, regardless of whether or not you agree with him, Foxi didn't address my latest points, but I don't want to talk about him if he has dropped the conversation. That wouldn't be fair.

As for the McGahn situation, which I want to talk about since it's one of the Big Four, Trump did criminally obstruct justice. To address your first point though, just because a person acts within one's authority doesn't mean it can't be criminal obstruction of justice. A president can pardon a person for just about any reason he/she chooses, for example, but one cannot legally use a pardon as an obstructive act. I hope that makes sense.

With that out of the way, going back to McGahn, it was an obstructive act and fills all three of the criteria:

Obstructive act: *Orders McGahn to Deny that the President Tried to Fire the Special Counsel.* You made some good points about whom it is or isn't okay to lie to (legally), but it's criminal obstruction if "it had the natural tendency to constrain McGahn from testifying truthfully or to undermine his credibility as a potential witness if he testified consistently with his memory, rather than with what the record said." In other words, Trump ordered McGahn to publicly contradict what he has already testified to government officials, which undermines his credibility. There is a *lot *of legal precedent for that being criminal obstruction of justice. Hypothetically, let's say someone testified against you to a grand jury because you're a mobster. You forcing that person to retract his or her testimony in a press conference is still obstruction of justice, even if the public retraction isn't to the grand jury itself. Criminal witness tampering on your part, for example, does not require that you have the witness perjure himself or herself. You are correct that it's generally legal to lie to the media, similar to how it's generally legal to pardon someone, but not if they obstruct justice. According to the Mueller report, the preponderance of evidence suggests this all to be the case, so we have an obstructive act.
Nexus: From the report, "The President knew that McGahn had personal knowledge of many of the events the Special Counsel was investigating and that McGahn had already been interviewed by Special Counsel investigators. And in the Oval Office meeting, the President indicated he knew that McGahn had told the Special Counsel's Office about the President's effort to remove the Special Counsel. The President challenged McGahn for disclosing that information and for taking notes that he viewed as creating unnecessary legal exposure. That evidence indicates the President's awareness that the June 17, 2017 events were relevant to the Special Counsel's investigation and any grand jury investigation that might grow out of it." In other words, Trump obstructed the criminal investigation he knew McGahn gave testimony to.
Intent: The Muller report speaks for itself when it says, "Substantial evidence indicates that in repeatedly urging McGahn to dispute that he was ordered to have the Special Counsel terminated , the President acted for the purpose of influencing McGahn 's account in order to deflect or prevent further scrutiny of the President's conduct towards the investigation."
I also want to note for anybody reading that the topic of McGahn is only one of four big cases of criminal obstruction of justice that Trump likely committed, in addition to the other ten that are a little more ambiguous than the Big Four.


----------



## KingVamp (Apr 30, 2019)

Foxi4 said:


> It's been a long, long time since the president played an important political function - they're supposed to look good and give interviews, might as well elect a professional entertainer.


Considering they have a hand in our policies/laws, going to have to say nonsense to this.


----------



## Xzi (May 1, 2019)

KingVamp said:


> Considering they have a hand in our policies/laws, going to have to say nonsense to this.


Not to mention the power to veto anything passed through the House and Senate.  Unilaterally deciding to continue to support the war in Yemen, for example.

In fact the opposite of what Foxi stated is true: the executive branch has steadily been gaining more power since GWB and the 'unitary executive theory.'


----------



## Lacius (May 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Not to mention the power to veto anything passed through the House and Senate.  Unilaterally deciding to continue to support the war in Yemen, for example.
> 
> In fact the opposite of what Foxi stated is true: the executive branch has steadily been gaining more power since GWB and the 'unitary executive theory.'


Nominations for lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court are also pretty important. Those alone make voting for president worth it.


----------

