Messages

101

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 24, 2019, 11:59:53 AM »

BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

102

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 24, 2019, 11:40:43 AM »

Hey, Crunch, do you know who wrote that opinion piece you quoted extensively in you're second-to-last post?

A guy named John Solomon.

A person who "has been accused of biased reporting in favor of conservatives, and of repeatedly manufacturing faux scandals."

And he's basing at least parts of his piece on an unnamed source.

Tell me, what would Donald Trump call an opinion piece by a biased reporter using an unnamed source?

103

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 22, 2019, 04:20:33 PM »

May I remind you, Crunch, that Congress has the obligation to oversee the government, including the Presidency.

If you believe that investigating the Presidency because of suspicious behavior is an attempted coup to nullify an election, and the elected officials who started that investigation should be "personally, professionally, and financially ruin[ed] ... and ... sen[t] ... off for lengthy prison sentences," then you are advocating that this role of Congress be stricken from the Constitution.  This is basically calling for the destruction of our Constitution and our system of government, since achieving the above would provide the President the power to become a dictator and destroy anyone who questions him. 

If you read the Mueller report, you will see there were plenty of behaviors that were suspicious, some even being legally and morally questionable.  Most of them still are, even if Mueller determined there was insufficient evidence for criminal prosecution.  So calling for the President to use the power of his office to "crush... his enemies," "[drive] them before him," and "hear the lamentation of the women"  ( )--well, let's just say that there are plenty of American patriots who love this country who will respond in kind. 

104

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 19, 2019, 12:05:36 PM »

Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Who said that, Crunch?  And why should I believe that person?

And if the administration cooperated with the investigation "in every way," why are there 11 instances of apparent obstruction of justice listed in the report? 

105

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 19, 2019, 11:06:22 AM »

I have not had a chance to read the report in whole and my initial reaction from the executive summaries is that it looks like a hit job.  I'd caution everyone to realize that what you read may not be the truth or the only version of a story.  If one person said what the prosecutors wanted to hear and eleven said it didn't happen, what ended up in the report (Guiliani has flat out said that some of the things in the report were directly contradicted, and known to have been directly contradicted, by the special counsel's office by more credible witnesses).

Are you saying, Seriati, that we should not put too much credence into this report that completely and totally exonerated Trump on collusion and obstruction of justice?

OK, if you say so.

(BTW, I wouldn't take Guiliani's word over Mueller's any day of the week, year, or millennium.  In fact, I wouldn't take him at this word at all.  That man has already proven himself to be a stupid shill for Trump, and would probably lie at the drop of a hat if he thought it would help him.  A utterly unreliable source.)

106

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 18, 2019, 06:32:16 PM »

Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

Be patient, Crunch.  Mueller hasn't appeared in front of Congress yet.

107

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 18, 2019, 11:24:07 AM »

As the old Russian proverb says: "Trust, but verify."

Now we get to verify.  Including the sweeping statements Barr made this morning.

Notwithstanding that the DOJ routinely has such press conferences...

Seriati, could you show a few examples of these press conferences?  I would do a Google search, but I can't think of criteria to use to find them.

108

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing

« on: April 17, 2019, 03:02:16 PM »

What does "the media" have to do with it?

Seriously?

Yeah, seriously.  I've only heard it applied to individuals on this board (except, maybe, in passing in the media, although I can't recall exactly where or if I ever did).

But the main thing is that calling it a "derangement syndrome" means that is it's just a different point of view, or even a propaganda effort.  It is an actual mental deficiency, an "disease" of the mind.  Crazy.  That anyone who does this is literally crazy.  And as Billy Joel tells us, "you should never argue with a crazy m-m-m-m-man."

A syndrome is a group of symptoms of a disease.  It has nothing to do with politics or propaganda.  We're talking about people who supposedly are certifiably crazy.

Who's we? I appreciate the literal definition but TDS is really a version of cognitive dissonance, anxiety and the hallucinations that happen as a result.

If you (and everyone who uses it) doesn't want to imply or directly say this is a disease of the mind, then why call it a disease of the mind?

And what about the "Right wing media?"  Don't they count?  For how many years did they constantly bring up Birtherism?  In 2012, Trump said that Romney "should ask Obama why autobiography states "born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia.""  In 2013, he still put Obama's birth certificate in quotations.  An anonymous source says he was still questioning it in 2016.  This is just one person.  There are those still convinced that Obama was born in Kenya.

Whataboutism right on cue. I’m sure there were people who suffered from ODS as well, it just wasn’t as prominently on display in the news, via celebrities, etc. unless you can point me to examples of lots of well known celebrities losing their *censored* because Obama wasn't born in 'merica?

Birtherism is just the best-known example of conservatives losing their *censored* over Obama.  There was much discussion on this board at the time as to whether anything that Obama did would be lawful if he was shown to have been born in Kenya, for instance.  And, of course, Trump made a name for himself questioning the President's birthplace.

But if you really want examples, how about all the calls for Obama's impeachment by Fox News?

Let’s take some time to remind ourselves of some things Obama did that they considered impeachment-worthy. When he issued an executive action on immigration in 2014, they called for impeachment. When PA Rep. Joe Sestak was pressured not to run in the 2010 Senate race, they called for impeachment. When Obama implemented spending cuts as part of the sequester, they called for impeachment. When, supposedly, his administration orchestrated a ‘cover up’ of the Boston bombing, they wanted impeachment. When federal money was lost due to an investment in a solar company, they called for impeachment. When Obama approved the prisoner swap involving Pvt. Bowe Bergdahl, they demanded impeachment. When the incident in Benghazi happened, impeachment. When he implemented Obamacare, impeachment. When he allowed Transgender people access to bathrooms, impeachment. Not showing his birth certificate - impeachment. Not extending Bush tax cuts, you guessed it, impeachment. Not defending a gay marriage ban - an impeachable offense by their standards. And of course, on June 4, 2014 Trump tweeted, “Are you allowed to impeach a president for gross incompetence?”

And don't forget, it is generally acknowledged that Trump is a unique President by modern standards.  Have you considered that perhaps we should actually worry more about what he is going to do more so than any previous modern President?

Finally, remember that Trump is a liar.  (No longer an opinion--an established fact. ) When a liar says he completely, utterly condemns something, are you under any obligation to believe him?  Can you blame someone for not believing him, especially when there are actions which could indicate that he really doesn't?  Is someone crazy for not believing the word of a liar?

Irrelevant. If I tell you that I love fruit, and then immediately follow it with “except bananas, bananas are horrible” but you actually believe I said I love bananas, it doesn’t matter whether you think I’m truthful or not, you’re literally hallucinating about the words that were spoken because of the way your brain is wired around how you think of me. That’s TDS.

I don't get your point.  Very few people have hallucinated about Trump's words.  We know he said that there "were some very fine people on both sides."  Do you deny it?  Do you need a link showing him saying that?

You somehow think that him saying beforehand, "Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group," that means there is absolutely no doubt that he believes it.  That afterward, because he said, "I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally," that he has absolutely no sympathy for those people.  That we should believe him.

But no one else has ever talked about how there were "some very fine people" among violent groups before.  How many Republicans talk about how there are "some very fine Muslims" while talking about the latest Islamic terrorist attack?  Remember that Obama was called an apologist for Islamic terrorists for not using the term "radical Islamic terrorism."  And you're telling me that questioning Trump's sincerity about White nationalists--the sincerity of a man who constantly, casually lies--is now a "derangement syndrome?" 

The Right had no problem perpetuating lies about Obama.  Yet when the Left disbelieves Trump, or thinks the worst of him, it is suddenly a "derangement syndrome."    This is what galls me, and why I know it's propaganda from the Right rather than it be "a real thing."

It’s not about disbelieving but literal hallucinations to fit bias. I’m sure there were some examples of it with Obama, so what? I'm not trying to establish this as something that has no precedent.

OK.  I'll admit that Democrat are "deranged" about Trump, if you will admit that Republicans were similarly "deranged" about Obama, and have no reason to criticize Democrats for doing the same thing that they did.  And if you will agree that much of the Democrat's criticism of Trump is legitimate, if overblown.  Agreed?

109

General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill

« on: April 17, 2019, 11:21:18 AM »

Lol, in no world do I agree that an increase year on year in federal tax revenue from an already excessive level should ever be 7.5%.   The idea that you seem to be proud of that result is troubling to me.

You seem to be conflating revenue with a tax increase.  Revenue is based on how much people make in a given year.  If the economy is good (at Trump supporters constantly tout), then revenues should be up, with no change in the tax rate.  Or are you saying that if you make $10,000 more in year, paying taxes on that is more of a burden to you than if you hadn't made that money? 

But yes, the fact that they are more, even a by a trivial amount, pretty much makes a lie of the idea that the tax cuts were a disaster for federal revenues.  Were you really happier with "increasing revenues" and a dragging economy, less jobs and no real wage growth?

 

You make irrelevant objections.  The economy was growing quite well in 2017 with the old tax rates.  That is why the revenue increased by 7.5%.  There would have been decreasing revenue if the economy was dragging and there were fewer jobs.  So we can have, and should expect, increasing revenues with a robust economy, more jobs, and real wage growth.

And from what I've read, the only reason there was a trivial increase was because of the first three months in FY2018, which were under the old tax rates.  So while you're touting how there was still an increase in tax revenues in spite of the tax cuts, in actual fact there was a decrease in revenues once those tax cuts began.  You should be (and probably soon will be) defending how less revenue is a wonderful thing for our country, rather than saying that the tax cuts had no significant effect.

It's a spending problem.  The government budget should be capped and only allowed to increase at inflation.  Make the government make cuts and prioritize.

And yet the increase in revenue didn't keep up with inflation.  So it didn't even satisfy that minimum increase you allowed.

And are you saying that Trump's proposal to increase spending on the military is irresponsible?  Or how about his increase in building a border wall?  There's an area where the Democrats tried to cap spending to previous levels, and the Republicans were screaming at them for it.  Why is that?  Aren't budget considerations paramount?

If there are areas where there should be cuts, then get your representatives that you voted for to make those cuts.  But if you think they should make mandatory cuts, then programs you think are important--even ones you might believe are because of a "national emergency"--are going to have to get cut, too. 

As any surgeon will tell you, if you aren't careful about where you cut, you're going to cut muscles and bone along with the fat.  Mandatory cuts are like telling a surgeon how much to cut, regardless of how much he can cut.

110

General Comments / Re: The Green New Deal

« on: April 17, 2019, 10:46:20 AM »

The Yale Program on Climate Change Communication did an interesting survey.  They found broad support for the Green New Deal.  Specifically:

92% of Democrats either Strongly Support or Somewhat Support,
88% of Independents, and
64% of Republicans.

Of course, to get that much support from Republicans required some slight-of-hand.  They did the obvious: they only described the details of the proposal.  They didn't say that it was the Democratic Green New Deal.

So there is some hope that Republicans could come up with their own version of the Green New Deal.  All they have to do is copy AOC's proposal (the survey also found that 82% of the respondents knew nothing at all about it), and give it their own name.  It would garner a majority of the party's support, and probably get enough Democratic support to pass.

Something to think about. 

111

General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill

« on: April 16, 2019, 05:45:36 PM »

Highest revenues in history - after the tax cuts - it's not a revenue problem that we're having it's a spending one.

Yes, the highest ever.  A whopping 0.4 to 0.5 percent higher than FY 2017! (Depending on who you talk to.  And it was that high only because the first three months of FY 2018 were pre-tax cut.)

For comparison, FY 2017 was a mere 7.5 percent higher than 2016.

And inflation for 2018 was 2.44 percent.

So tell me about this "spending problem" we're having. 

112

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing

« on: April 12, 2019, 01:21:11 PM »

If there had been examples of the media continually pushing the birther theory in the same way they purposefully perpetuate the “fine people” hoax, I’d say you’re right. The degree to which people and the media are content to literally hallucinate to fit their narrative around Trump is astounding.

What does "the media" have to do with it?  A syndrome is a group of symptoms of a disease.  It has nothing to do with politics or propaganda.  We're talking about people who supposedly are certifiably crazy.

And what about the "Right wing media?"  Don't they count?  For how many years did they constantly bring up Birtherism?  In 2012, Trump said that Romney "should ask Obama why autobiography states "born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia.""  In 2013, he still put Obama's birth certificate in quotations.  An anonymous source says he was still questioning it in 2016.  This is just one person.  There are those still convinced that Obama was born in Kenya.

Finally, remember that Trump is a liar.  (No longer an opinion--an established fact. ) When a liar says he completely, utterly condemns something, are you under any obligation to believe him?  Can you blame someone for not believing him, especially when there are actions which could indicate that he really doesn't?  Is someone crazy for not believing the word of a liar?

The Right had no problem perpetuating lies about Obama.  Yet when the Left disbelieves Trump, or thinks the worst of him, it is suddenly a "derangement syndrome."    This is what galls me, and why I know it's propaganda from the Right rather than it be "a real thing."

113

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: April 11, 2019, 02:46:42 PM »

Of course white supremacists would like to make it known that they have support at high levels, to make it look like they're legitimized.

Fair enough.  How can we tell the difference between white nationalists pretending to like Trump and pretending that he is supporting their views, and them actually liking Trump and believing he supports their views?

If you're asking for my assessment, it would be to ignore white supremacists wholesale. Just totally disregard anything they say and leave them alone. If they want to speak, or protest, let them, and don't give them any attention. It's the making them into a Goliath that makes them one. You don't need to parse whether they 'really' believe some statement they make or another. It just doesn't matter.

But here we're not giving attention to their political views or influence, but rather their beliefs on who is their friend/supporter and who isn't.  They may be pipsqueeks, but their views can have dire consequences.  (Do I really need to Godwin this? )

And who is a better judge of someone white supremacists consider to be a friend/ally, and who they consider to be an enemy, than the white supremacists themselves? 

114

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing

« on: April 11, 2019, 02:11:44 PM »

In terms of scale I would say the animus against Trump far exceeds what there was against Obama, and even Bush Jr.

But to be fair, back in 2000 no one reacted like this to anyone.

To be fair, we've never had a President who has acted like Trump, either.

Uh, Grant's Administration was undoubtedly more corrupt.

Andrew Jackson was in a category unto himself, openly defied the Supreme Court on what became the Trail of Tears and also highly corrupt.

The administration of President John Adams wasn't exactly a picnic either on the Civil Rights front.

Woodrow Wilson deserves a mention for a number of reasons, ardent KKK supporter, officially made the US military hostile to homosexuals, introduced professional lobbyists to Washington DC, and pushed through a number of "reforms" at least one of which is no more, several others probably should be no more, his civil rights record wasn't great either. But hey, modern day Democrats love him.

Most of the late 19th Century Presidents were hopelessly incompetent or corrupt, if not both.

So the best counterargument for there being too much animus against Trump is that you can name at least 4 other Presidents that were more corrupt than Trump?

How did the Press treat those Presidents?  With much greater respect than Trump gets, worse, or similar?

Perhaps I should have limited it to Presidents in recent history (like the last 50 years)...

115

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing

« on: April 11, 2019, 02:06:23 PM »

TDS as being invoked in here has "a higher standard" that Birtherism. So far as I've seen, TDS is getting invoked in here when somebody has determined they're up against a logical fallacy after presenting evidence, and further pursuit is likely to pointless.

What I've seen is it being invoked after presenting weak evidence, in order to dismiss all counterarguments.  Basically sticking fingers in the ears and saying, "La, la, la, la!  You have a syndrome, so I don't have to listen no more!" 

Doesn't sound like much of a "higher standard" to me. 

116

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: April 11, 2019, 01:42:44 PM »

BTW, as we all know, Trump likes to give demeaning nicknames to his opponents and those he doesn't like.  What's his nickname for white supremacists? 

117

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: April 11, 2019, 01:39:14 PM »

Of course white supremacists would like to make it known that they have support at high levels, to make it look like they're legitimized.

Fair enough.  How can we tell the difference between white nationalists pretending to like Trump and pretending that he is supporting their views, and them actually liking Trump and believing he supports their views?

118

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: April 11, 2019, 01:07:10 PM »

So you are asking, why after the media has buried Trump's anti-bigot statements and overplayed his ambiguous statements are there not more widely published accounts from racists decrying him?

No, you misunderstand me.  I'm asking if there are any such published articles decrying Trump, not whether they are widely published or not.  And if not, why aren't there any such articles.

First of all, racists are deficient thinkers prone to internalize nonsensical and unproven beliefs and ignore contrary evidence.  Our media seems to have adopted this trait.  in this case, it means they may very well believe Trump is on their side cause they read it in the media.  It's still a ridiculous assertion, that the lack of media coverage of the such position pieces should be considered some kind of warped proof that Trump supports them.

First, why do you believe that white nationalists give any credence to the MSM?  They are some of the first ones to call them liars and spreaders of "fake news."  I would think any assertion by the MSM would be challenged and checked by white nationalists.

Second, why would you disbelieve them?  If the MSM says that Trump supports white nationalists, and white nationalists (who hate the MSM and do not support them in any way) say he supports them, and do not denounce him (as they do the MSM and everyone else who they fell is their "enemy"), isn't this an indication that they may be both right?  When two disparate sources come to the same conclusion, doesn't that indicate to you that they may both be on the right track?

Second, I have no belief that you've spent any time looking into what racists are actually saying.  I know I haven't.  Where exactly would this condemnation come from and who would find it?  The media's incentives are flat out to find and publish that which supports the story they want to tell.

No, I am not familiar with what the racists are saying.  Which is why I'm asking if there are such articles condemning Trump.

And while "the media's incentives are flat out to find and publish that which supports the story they want to tell," remember that we don't have just one media in this country.  There is the entire Right Wing media, that wants to contradict what the Left Wing media says.  Don't you think your sources that remind you of Trump's anti-racist statements would find it helps to support the story they want to tell to point out the hatred white supremacists have for Trump?

Third, we have a binary system.  No one supports their positions on the issues they care about, because neither party supports racism.  They still are going to vote for someone, and in fact, virtually all the research shows the support of actual white racists in about equal in each of the parties.

Could you link to some of this research?  I haven't heard of this, and I am curious about it.

However, as The Drake quotes, David Duke's criticism of Trump is tepid at best, and rather supportive all-in-all.  He certainly feels that he could talk to Trump and make an ally of him.

Compare it to his criticisms of the Left and (current) Democratic politicians.  Do you think he was so nice when talking about Obama, or Hillary?  Why does Obama's and Hillary's condemnations rankle white supremacists so much more than Trump's?

You discount reports of Trump being friendly toward white supremacists in the media because you believe it fits the media's narrative, and that the media is suppressing contradictory information.  But why would white supremacists tell the same story?  Why do they feel Trump is friendly towards them, if this friendliness is not real?  You think they don't recognize their friends from their enemies?

119

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing

« on: April 10, 2019, 04:59:32 PM »

In terms of scale I would say the animus against Trump far exceeds what there was against Obama, and even Bush Jr.

But to be fair, back in 2000 no one reacted like this to anyone.

To be fair, we've never had a President who has acted like Trump, either.

120

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: April 10, 2019, 04:30:04 PM »

One question: if Trump has so strongly condemned white nationalism, just like every President before him, why haven't the white nationalists responded?

I mean, Obama condemned white nationalists, and they weren't too pleased with him.  They wrote articles condemning him.  They hated him and let everyone know it.

So where are the articles condemning Trump?  Where do white nationalists say he's a traitor to their country and their cause?  Where do they spew their hatred on him?

I mean, it's not like white nationalists are shy about talking about who they hate.  Who their enemies are.  Who they think aren't with them.  Who they would like to see die.

So why haven't I seen any reporting about how the white nationalist movement hates Trump?  Is the MSM not reporting it?  Or does it not exist?

And if not, why not?  I know white nationalists don't believe everything the MSM and left say.  They're pretty independent thinkers in that respect.   So why don't they, apparently, think Trump is condemning them?

121

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing

« on: April 10, 2019, 03:42:36 PM »

Quote from: Wayward Son on Today at 02:46:16 PM

But the advice is still good, because TDS is a strawman, an attempt by conservatives to justify ignoring any criticism of Trump, regardless of merit.

That's compete nonsense.  TDS is about calling out criticisms that have no merit.

No, that's nonsense.

If a criticism is nonsense, you call it nonsense. You don't need a made-up "syndrome" to point out nonsense.

You only need a "syndrome" to lump everything together.  Which means you don't need to examine each one to verify it is nonsense.  Which means you can lump the valid criticism in there, too.

You just call anything anyone says bad about Trump "TDS" and then you can dismiss it.  Easy-peasy.  No thought required.  And none used.

122

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing

« on: April 10, 2019, 02:46:16 PM »

The constant desire to go "whatabout the birthers" is quite frankly, an attempt to call to a strawman, and is best handled by ignoring it. Just like the Birthers themselves were.

It would be nice to ignore Birthers, except, of course, that Republicans nominated, then elected, one to be the President of the United States! 

And as much as we'd like to ignore the President, ultimately we have to pay attention.

But the advice is still good, because TDS is a strawman, an attempt by conservatives to justify ignoring any criticism of Trump, regardless of merit.  It presupposes that the President couldn't possibly be as bad as his critics contend, ignoring the fact that, yes, Trump very well could be that bad.

So I agree that any comparison of TDS to Birtherism should be ignored, just as any reference to TDS should be ignored as a strawman, too.

123

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: April 02, 2019, 03:07:14 PM »

And the problem is not that the clips they used aren't accurate.  It's that they are most likely cherry-picked.  How many other clips didn't they use?

Are you kidding?  You're defending CNN by accusing Fox of Cherry Picking?  Do you even watch cable news?  Fox has more people on the left on regularly and respectfully than CNN and MSNBC have people on the right - combined.

First off, I'm not "defending" CNN.  I'm simply disregarding the opinion/conclusion from Tucker's show.  I asked for other sources.  Are you saying you believe everything that Tucker says without checking on it? 

Second, who cares how many people on the Left Fox opinion shows have?  That has no influence on cherry picking and quote mining.  Sure, IF they ask the Left guest about the segment and IF he/she is knowledgeable about the subject, then MAYBE he will challenge the conclusion.  But did this happen in this instance?   Do I really need to look?

CNN tells you that Trump won't condemn white nationalists, even though they have clips of him doing exactly that from speeches that they show other clips?

So what?  I'm not saying CNN never cherry-picks.  And if Tucker shows a clip of CNN saying Trump won't condemn white nationalists, and then shows a clip of Trump condemning white nationalists, I will agree with Tucker on that.

But with something like CNN doing the DNC's bidding for purely political reasons--well, that's the kind of smear that I expect from the Fox pundits.  Sounds reasonable, with plenty of clips you can show, but could ignore other reasons for them doing so, or any number of reports at the same time about Mueller's report that aired at the same time.

Just about any story the Fox pundits give about what Democrats and the Main Stream Media is like is suspect, and should be verified by a better source before believed. 

Did they put the clips into proper context, or edit them so the person said something different than they were intended, if not the complete opposite of what he actually said?  Conservative pundits love quote mining.  They love cherry-picking.  They play fast and lose with numbers.  So the conclusions they come to are suspect.

So prove it.  You're standing in dirty waters when you're standing with the MSM.

As I said, I'm not standing with the MSM.  I just know better than to blindly believe Fox pundits.

You know what skip it.  I don't believe you've actually reached this conclusion on your own from observation anyway, it's a meme or a talking point you've heard to be repeated to address actual and legitimate criticism of the media.

When from your own observations you know that these guys lie, you don't need memes or talking points to confirm it.  Just common sense.

124

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 02, 2019, 01:22:07 PM »

Now let's not jump to conclusions, Crunch.

Yes, Mueller apparently determined there was no evidence of "collusion" during the 2018 election.

But it was limited to the 2018 election.  Nothing after.

And we still haven't seen the explanations for what appeared to be collusion at the time (Trump Tower meeting, attempts to create a secret communication line with Russia, etc) and why Mueller didn't consider them not to be collusion.  And whether most people would agree with his conclusions.

And don't forget, Mueller specifically did not decide if the evidence he found indicated obstruction of justice or not.  That was Barr's and Rosenstein's calls, and we don't know if most people would agree with that until we see the evidence.

So...it ain't over until its over.

125

General Comments / Re: Biden on the block

« on: April 02, 2019, 11:25:22 AM »

As to what is being referred to, its the pictures of women showing obvious discomfort and Biden's hands being in some really awkward/inappropriate locations.

I was asking Lloyd about his statement about Flores, before photos or pictures were even mentioned in the thread.  And there are no photos or pictures of what purportedly happened to Flores.

So no, it is not "what is being referred to."  The subject is Flores and her accusations; pictures of "creepy Biden" came up later and were not part of the original conversation nor the statement I was referring to.  Don't move the goal post.

126

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 02, 2019, 11:11:21 AM »

Let's be honest.  I'm not asserting the law was broken either (on appointing Mueller, on other things it appears to have been).

No, you just asserted that those who appointed Mueller "are potentially traitors here."

127

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 02, 2019, 11:07:30 AM »

It's not legal to appoint a special prosecutor to continue a counter intelligence operation, only a criminal one.  What was the criminal investigation, and what was the evidence that supported it?

OK, Seriati, I see your point.  I've been thinking of this investigation as a counterintelligence investigation, which is properly in the purview of the FBI.  The FBI should have investigated Trump's campaign, not a special prosecutor.

But, of course, IIRC, the special prosecutor was appointed after Trump fired the head of the FBI, partially because the FBI was investigating his campaign (according to Trump himself).  So what would have been the legal way to continue a counterintelligence investigation when one of the people being investigated can fire anyone investigating it? 

After all, we can't wait until secrets are compromised before we start investigating possible ties to Russia by the Trump Administration.

128

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 01, 2019, 06:41:04 PM »

What a gross retcon.  Go back to pretending.  Anyone who paid any attention for the last 2 years, saw a massive propaganda campaign by the media and the DNC claiming that it was Trump himself that was guilty of collusion, that he was a Russian plant and that the Mueller investigation was going to take him down.

You, and the President, appear to believe that the investigation was run by the media and the Democrats.  If so, it would have come to a different conclusion, since the court of public opinion is not as rigorous as the Justice Department.   In fact, the reason Mueller was appointed was to make sure neither the media or the DNC would have undo influence on the investigation.

Yes, there were plenty of hopes, the top one being that Trump hoped it wouldn't take him down, which is the real reason he called it a witch hunt (insurance).  But he wasn't calling the media and DNC portrayal a witch hunt; he was calling Mueller's investigation a witch hunt.  Not the same thing.

Mueller's specific mandate has never been clearly and fully laid out.

Then what was this??

Quote
So when Trump knew he hadn't colluded with the Russians, that justifies him calling any investigation into whether anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians "a witch hunt?"

Yes.  Unless there was evidence - WHICH WE HAVE NEVER SEEN - this was an investigation looking for a crime, not an investigation of a crime.  That is exactly what's meant by a witch hunt.

If they had evidence of a crime, they wouldn't need to investigate, would they?  They would have gone directly to indictments.

They had suspicious behavior.  It was good to make sure that was all it was.

Do you really want our intelligence services to wait until they can arrest someone before investigating possible corruption to our electoral system?

129

General Comments / Re: Biden on the block

« on: April 01, 2019, 06:13:20 PM »

I'm saying we're discussing pictures supporting a specific claim about Biden and trying to segue into a Trump criticism on different facts is a distraction.

Sorry, I was just trying to clarify exactly what conservatives found objectionable about Biden's behavior, and if such objections were universal or merely confined to Democrats.

Because it definitely feels like things that Biden is accused of doing wrong are not even an issue in Trump's case.

130

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: April 01, 2019, 03:55:15 PM »

Giving 2 years of essentially free rein on a fake investigation into a lie is not in ANY CREDIBLE WAY doing everything in his power to obstruct. 

You seem to forget.  Trump KNEW ALL ALONG that there wasn't any collusion on his part.  That makes his tolerance and yes patience with a politically driven witch hunt truly remarkable.

And what you forget, Seriati, was the Mueller wasn't tasked to investigate Trump on collusion.  Think about that for a moment.  Mueller was never specifically tasked to investigate Trump.  You can read it for yourself.

So when Trump said the whole investigation was a "witch hunt," he wasn't talking only about himself.  He was talking about his whole team.  Everyone involved in the campaign.  And he couldn't have known, 100 percent, that they were all squeaky-clean.

So when he called it a witch-hunt, he was also trying to protect everyone else.  Which means Paul Manifort and his work for Ukrainian politicians.  Richard Pinedo, who sold bank account numbers created using stolen identities to foreign entities--a practice the Russians used to subvert our elections, and may have been to those Russians.  George Papadapoulos, who lied to the FBI about talking to a Russian with "substantial connections to Russian government officials."  And others.

So when Trump knew he hadn't colluded with the Russians, that justifies him calling any investigation into whether anyone in his campaign colluded with the Russians "a witch hunt?"  That since he was "clean," then his entire staff must have been "clean," also, and anyone who thought otherwise is automatically a "TRAITOR?"

If you think that is "tolerance," I would hate to see what you consider "intolerance." 

131

General Comments / Re: Biden on the block

« on: April 01, 2019, 03:20:54 PM »

Now how would you feel about a candidate that allegedly tried to put his hands between a woman's legs during a dinner party.  Then later on, he allegedly took her into his daughter's bedroom, felt her up and tried to kiss her, while she was freaking out about it.  Would you consider voting for that candidate in the primary?

I don't know, can you show us these pictures?

There were no pictures.  How could there be pictures for something like that?  It's just the woman's word.

Are you saying that we shouldn't believe a woman (like Flores) unless she has pictures of the accusation? 

132

General Comments / Re: Biden on the block

« on: April 01, 2019, 03:05:17 PM »

So Lloyd, what do you think should happen to Biden?  Should we just forgive him for this faux pas?  Or does this disqualify him for the Presidency?  Is this really a serious matter?

He hasn't been accused of or committed a crime that I can see. I don't think it disqualifies him.  I do think we should look at it in the bigger picture.  I've seen lots of photos that look like he's making women uncomfortable with his inappropriate touching.  Seems kind of creepy to me.  Nor does he seem to have apologized.  I think If I were voting in the Democratic primary I would not vote for him.

Fair enough.  I find it rather creepy, too.

Now how would you feel about a candidate that allegedly tried to put his hands between a woman's legs during a dinner party.  Then later on, he allegedly took her into his daughter's bedroom, felt her up and tried to kiss her, while she was freaking out about it.  Would you consider voting for that candidate in the primary?

133

General Comments / Re: Biden on the block

« on: April 01, 2019, 11:15:34 AM »

So Lloyd, what do you think should happen to Biden?  Should we just forgive him for this faux pas?  Or does this disqualify him for the Presidency?  Is this really a serious matter?

134

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: March 29, 2019, 03:45:09 PM »

Well, I suppose that makes it easier to stay in your “safe space” and only hear the things that conform to your desires.

No, it just saves time.  People who care about the truth have a hard enough time being accurate all the time.  It would take forever to sift truth from fiction from those who don't give a hoot about being right.

135

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: March 29, 2019, 10:47:23 AM »

And that’s how we know you don’t even have an idea what you’re talking about. Try actually seeing what you’re talking about ... it wasn’t Hannity, not even mentioned or shown in the clip once. Didn’t come from his show. You’re commenting on something you never even saw.

All the clips in it are actually from CNN.

Oops.  My mistake.  You mentioned Tucker, not Hannity.  But just about every big-name pundit on Fox is unreliable from what I can see.

And the problem is not that the clips they used aren't accurate.  It's that they are most likely cherry-picked.  How many other clips didn't they use?  Did they put the clips into proper context, or edit them so the person said something different than they were intended, if not the complete opposite of what he actually said?  Conservative pundits love quote mining.  They love cherry-picking.  They play fast and lose with numbers.  So the conclusions they come to are suspect.

Show me a source that isn't know for quote mining and cherry-picking, and I'll take a look.  But if you want me to rely on Fox pundits for information, well, I ain't buying any bridges you want to sell, either. 

136

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: March 28, 2019, 06:25:28 PM »

But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

The problem, Crunch, is that you got your information about CNN's behavior from Fox, who might--just might--be a wee bit biased and slanted.   You need to take that into account before spreading criticisms.

Or, you know, you could actually watch the clip and judge for yourself. Knee jerk responses without even trying to understand the issue might just be a wee bit biased as well. Maybe you need to take tgar into account before commenting.

Sorry, but Sean Hannity is not a reliable source, especially for his "analyses" of other networks.  He is so biased, he has and will lie.  Please provide another source for the information.  Sean isn't worth listening to.

137

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: March 28, 2019, 04:25:10 PM »

But what about Fox!!! 

Not really a valid criticism you know ... well, probably is on Quora.

The problem, Crunch, is that you got your information about CNN's behavior from Fox, who might--just might--be a wee bit biased and slanted.   You need to take that into account before spreading criticisms.

138

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: March 28, 2019, 03:14:29 PM »

Now this is what I'm looking forward to seeing for the Mueller Report. 

I'm sure no one would have any objections... 

139

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: March 28, 2019, 01:31:41 PM »

Here's a succinct summary from David Brin's blog today (in the comments section):

Dig this. The only thing Mueller dismissed was Trump direct collusion DURING 2016 with Russian meddling DURING THE 2016 ELECTION.

Not a single other thing was absolved. Indeed, close to 150 charges have been filed against scores of people who were/are varying degrees of Trump/GOP factotums.

So I look forward to the report.  I look forward to things that came up but weren't investigated.  I look forward to Mueller explaining exactly what he meant by what he wrote in the report, and parts that he may have omitted because he felt they were not appropriate to the parameters of the investigation.

140

General Comments / Re: We stood up for the Environment and voted present

« on: March 27, 2019, 06:36:19 PM »

I guess they should have voted for the Republican proposal.

Oh, that's right... 

141

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: March 27, 2019, 06:35:02 PM »

What I will be most interested in seeing, when the full report is released (assuming Trump doesn't change his mind again), is why the Trump Administration behaved like it did.

Your confused at how they reacting to being illegally spied on for political purposes?  Having intentional and malicious security breaches by members of the bureacracy?  Not having any real control over the administration of justice (a primary function of the executive) because an internal cabal was looking to use anything they could to generate a charge?

And oh yeah, having the entire media and DNC sell a lie about them being agents of a foreign power?

Notice the word "specifically."  What you just wrote has little, if anything, to do with what I was specifically looking for.

I will note that most of the security breaches were committed by Trump appointees in his own White House.  But then, they were "only the best" leakers and security breachers, weren't they?

Specifically:

* Why did Trump Jr. meet with the Russians at Trump Tower, along with Maniford and Kushner?  What did he really expect to get from the Russians?  What did Maniford and Kushner expect?

Trump Jr. said from the start he thought he was getting dirt on the Clinton campaign.  I've pointed this out to you at least 4 times.

Oddly enough, I don't recall this.  Could you point to your source, so I can see the time line of when he said he thought he was getting dirt on Clinton?  As I recall, he only admitted it after his e-mail leaked, and it was obvious they didn't meet to talk about adoptions, i.e. when Junior couldn't lie anymore.

* Why did Donald and Jr. lie about what the Trump Tower meeting was really about?  If anyone who thinks they were only expecting to discuss Russian adoptions, I have a nice new bridge to sell you.

Are you intentionally lying, or do you keep forgetting?  Trump Jr. said he thought the meeting was to get dirt, but all they wanted to talk about was the Magnitsky Act.  That's literally the opposite of what you erroneously believe. 

In other words, he didn't lie.

Except I don't believe they only talked about Magnitsky Act.  Russia had dirt on Clinton.  The other Russian players who were at the meeting were not there to talk about the Magnitsky Act.  Do you really think they would waste their time just talking about adoptions? 

Why do you think they only talked about the Magnitsky Act?  How do you know what they talked about?  What's your source?

I'd like to see what Mueller came up with.

* Why did Kushner attempt to get a secret phone line through the Russian embassy?

Same reason Hillary did?  Assuming it's even true.

Hillary tried to get a secret line with the Russians?  Why wasn't that front-page news for the Right Wing Press?  What's your source?

Or are you referring to Hillary's improper use of non-government cell phone lines, like Kushner is now accused of doing?  (BTW, does this mean Republicans will now be chanting "Lock Him Up?"  Or do they only want to lock up Democrats? )

* Why did Trump refuse to allow any American translator listen to his official conversations with Vladimir Putin?

Leaks.  Leaks.  Leaks.  And oh yeah, big ole lies based on pseudo leaks.

You're telling me Trump couldn't find a single translator he could trust?  That you believe he is that incompetent?  And you voted for this clown. 

* Why did Maniford share poll data with a man linked to Russian intelligence?  I can't think of a good reason unless it was to help the campaign.

Have you responded to a single point I raised on this?  No. No and No again.

And which of your points wasn't speculation on your part?  I'd like to hear the opinion of a professional investigator before I stop wondering.

* Why did Mueller categorically state that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," but only stated that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [regarding obstruction of justice], it also does not exonerate him?"  Why was he so conclusive about one issue, but not the other?  What instances did Mueller considered it possible that Trump obstructed justice? And why did Trump act like he did in those instances?

Because there's literally no real evidence of collusion, which just underscores how silly your prior lines of questions are.

Obstruction, 3 likely reasons, 1. he was running a political witch hunt and that's all he could throw to his allies the DNC and Never Trumpers; 2. he was pissed as a prosecutor with all the things Trump said and he had no obligation to make Trump's life easier; 3. he honestly found Trump's behavior repugnant and was looking for anything he could charge but couldn't bring himself to actually make the charge.

Just because you believe they are "likely reasons" doesn't make them true.  I'd rather see Mueller's reasoning than to speculate based on nothing.

And you ignore the most "likely reason:"  that Mueller did find evidence of obstruction of justice, but felt it was not sufficient for him to make any charges and left it up to the Attorney General.

I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior.  But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation.  Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.

Yes, I'd like to see clarity on the "suspicious behaviors" that started the investigation.  1.  How did a FISA warrant get issued on Carter Page requiring verified evidence he's a Russian agent, yet he not get charged.  2.  How did the DNC get away with hiring a British Spy to collect Russian intell and internet accounts into a report that triggered a federal investigation of an opposition political party.  3.  How did the bureacracy manage to leak left and right things to trigger an investigation, including illegally unmasking and leaking the names of Americans in intell transcritpts.  4.  How did the head of the FBI manage to get away with attempting to blackmail an American president, leaking classified information, and triggering a special counsel without legitimate evidence.  5.  How are the DNC and the Media getting away with coordinating a message of constant lies?

I mean honestly, you guys have been calling Trump a liar since he claimed that the Obama admin had his campaign wiretapped - which turned out to be true, in Trump tower - which turned out to be true.  That he was lieing about Russian collusion - which again turned out to be true.

Now, several of you said you'd accept the conclusions of the Mueller report.  Are you there?  Do you accept that the story of Russian collusion was a lie?

I certainly accept that there is not sufficient evidence to accuse Trump or his Administration of colluding with the Russians.  I would still like to see the evidence of why these suspicious behaviors were innocent and innocuous events.

Hopefully some of your questions will be answered, too, although I doubt Mueller investigated the reasons for his investigation.

I am also happy about the outcome.  This is precisely what you would expect from an unbiased investigation.  The facts were considered, and the conclusions were based on the facts, and not politics.  Trump should have had more faith in the system, instead of calling it a "witch hunt" from the beginning.  That only made him look guilty and afraid of the results.  I'd rather have a system that verifies the integrity of our leaders than one where just investigating suspicious behavior makes one a "traitor" to our country.  (And you know what we do with traitors...)  Let us hope we never reach a point where the latter becomes true.   

142

General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?

« on: March 27, 2019, 04:09:39 PM »

And we're back to "those polls may not mean what you think they mean"

Like "the country is headed in the right/wrong direction" may be as much a response to what the Democrats are doing as it is a response to Trump. It's very likely it actually is a response to both.

That doesn't signal an advantage to Democrats. That signals major hazards for both parties, and that those voters will likely either break for the one they consider to be the "lesser evil" or simply not vote. (Like happened in three certain states in 2016)

Yep.  The polls may not mean what we think they mean. 

And the economic models that showed a correlation with those polls may not be correct, either.

Which means those models may not be as reliable as they once were.

143

General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?

« on: March 27, 2019, 01:53:49 PM »

But if the election were held today, he’d likely ride to a second term in a huge landslide, according to multiple economic models with strong track records of picking presidential winners and losses.

Credit a strong U.S. economy featuring low unemployment, rising wages and low gas prices -- along with the historic advantage held by incumbent presidents.

That's not as strong a prediction as you think, Crunch.  Per the same Politico article:

Trump has already upended many of the rules of presidential politics. His party suffered a drubbing in last year’s midterm elections despite the strong economy, and the yawning gap between how voters view the president and the nation’s economic standing is growing even larger: Presidents typically just aren’t this unpopular when the economic engine is humming along.

Trump this week seized on a new CNN poll that showed more than seven in 10 Americans, or 71 percent, view the U.S. economy as “very good” or “somewhat good.” That was higher than CNN has measured at any point since a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in Feb. 2001 found 80 percent thought the economy was that robust.

Yet Trump’s approval rating in the poll — which is usually tied closely to the economy — is just 42 percent. And unlike during the late ’90s, when President Bill Clinton’s approval ratings surged ahead of his personal favorability amid major scandal, Trump’s favorable ratings (41 percent in the CNN poll) track closely with his job-approval rating.

Those low scores also apply to many attributes typically seen as desirable in presidents. Just 40 percent say Trump cares about people like them; 34 percent say he is honest and trustworthy; 41 percent say he can manage the government effectively; and 32 percent say he will unite the country, not divide it.

Moreover, even how Americans view the state of the country has become divorced from the economy. In the latest POLITICO/Morning Consult poll, only 36 percent of voters said the U.S. was headed in the right direction, compared with nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, who said it was off on the wrong track.

For the economic models to be correct, voters would have to shrug off much of what they dislike about Trump and decide the strength of the economy makes a change unwise.

Prominent Democrats know that while Trump might seem like a loose cannon faced with the threat of a devastating report from special counsel Robert Mueller, he will likely be a formidable opponent in 2020, especially if the economy remains close to where it is today.

“Despite the fact that Trump is a largely incompetent clown, Democrats should not be overly confident or sanguine that they can beat him,” said Dan Pfeiffer, a top aide to former President Barack Obama. “He is a slight favorite to win. But he barely won last time and it took a Black Swan series of events to make that happen. All Democrats have to do is flip 100,000 or so votes in three states to win and that’s a very doable thing.”

(Emphasis mine.)

Under a normal President, these economic indicators would be strong.  But Trump is anything but a normal President.

144

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: March 26, 2019, 06:36:54 PM »

But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation. 

Wut? This investigation was not started by any suspicious behavior on the part of the Trump campaign or the Whitehouse. This whole thing was started when corrupt FBI and DOJ officials took Hillary's half baked oppo research and fraudulently obtained FISA orders to conduct the investigations (Stzok's "insurance policy"). This whole thing was kicked off for no other reason than to delegitimize Trump and get him impeached, overturning the election results, literally a coup. Saying this started because of suspicious behavior from Trump or his team is just more gaslighting.

Oh, so you're saying that all these other dubious events happened after the investigation started or came to light while the investigation was underway.  Well, even better that we had an investigation to address them, isn't it?

I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior. 

Millions spent, lives ruined, what was left of the MSM's credibility utterly destroyed, that's great. This was the third investigation into this, and you still have no answers? What you mean is, you don't have the answers you were promised - specifically, ones that indicted Trump.

What we were promised was a thorough and unbiased investigation by a respected Republican former-head of the FBI.  I still assume that was what we got, in spite of all the rhetoric and unsubstantiated slander from the Right Wing Media.  Which is why I want to see the results, so I can judge for myself, and not rely on unreliable interpreters like you.

The bottom line is I want to why such suspicious behavior was actually innocent.  How did it look so bad?  What was the real motivation behind these suspicious acts?  That's something that the Right cannot answer, because they are so blinded by their partisanship that they cannot even recognize how bad it all looked.  I am hopeful that Mueller would be able to explain it now.

And while you like to comfort yourself about how the "MSM's credibility" was "utterly destroyed," I wonder where you will get your information in the future, since the Right Wing Media never had an ounce of it. 

Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.

You *know* what happens when the report gets released. Come on, stop. Redacted areas will be used as proof for the conspiracy theory. More things will be cherrypicked for you to be gaslighted further into believing something happened that didn't.

This was a scam, that's all it was.

I realize you are basing your expectations of the future based on what Republicans have done during the last Administration.  And I'm sure there are those who will do precisely what you expect.  But we still have Mueller's own words to refer to.  Since everyone on the Left and the Right seems to believe him (the Left before the report came out, the Right now ), I think his insight into these events will be illuminating. 

Yes, parts will be redacted and people will interpret those redactions in all sorts of ways.  Which is why you should be supporting Pelosi's request that the report be released unredacted, to thwart those who would scam us with them.  But, of course, you won't because--you know, she's a Democrat. 

The thing is, Crunch, Trump is a liar, a con-man and a fool, and this report hasn't changed any of that.  You knew these things when you voted for him, and he has proven them time and again since.  Why you are so adamant about believing him is beyond me.  Yes, these particular accusations apparently are not true.  We'll know just how much they are untrue when the report comes out.  But if you think he's done nothing wrong, well, more the fool are you.  Eventually he will slip up, and we intend to nail him then, if only at the next election.  Because our country deserves someone better than this automobile-wreak of a President and presidency.

And if you think this attitude is horrible and terrible and we should be ashamed of ourselves--where were you during the last Administration, when all this and more was being heaped on Obama, for far less reason? 

You don't like it when the opposition has no respect for the President?  Well, you should have spoken up when it happened the previous time.  And you shouldn't have elected a President that richly deserves such scorn.

145

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report

« on: March 26, 2019, 02:59:37 PM »

What I will be most interested in seeing, when the full report is released (assuming Trump doesn't change his mind again), is why the Trump Administration behaved like it did.  Specifically:

* Why did Trump Jr. meet with the Russians at Trump Tower, along with Maniford and Kushner?  What did he really expect to get from the Russians?  What did Maniford and Kushner expect?

* Why did Donald and Jr. lie about what the Trump Tower meeting was really about?  If anyone who thinks they were only expecting to discuss Russian adoptions, I have a nice new bridge to sell you.

* Why did Kushner attempt to get a secret phone line through the Russian embassy?

* Why did Trump refuse to allow any American translator listen to his official conversations with Vladimir Putin?

* Why did Maniford share poll data with a man linked to Russian intelligence?  I can't think of a good reason unless it was to help the campaign.

* Why did Mueller categorically state that "the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities," but only stated that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime [regarding obstruction of justice], it also does not exonerate him?"  Why was he so conclusive about one issue, but not the other?  What instances did Mueller considered it possible that Trump obstructed justice? And why did Trump act like he did in those instances?

I am glad that this investigation was done, and that we will have some answers about the Trump Administration's behavior.  But it has yet to clarify the suspicious behaviors that started the investigation.  Hopefully, the full report will provide satisfactory answers.

146

General Comments / Re: "Misgendering" hate crime

« on: March 20, 2019, 06:47:18 PM »

But in this case, it wasn't a motivational demeaning, which we (often) allow in sports.  It was a day-in, day-out refusal to address the child properly, as I understand the story.

How would you have felt if the coach always referred to you son as a little girl or "Nancy," no matter how well he played?  And referred to everyone else as guys?  Don't you think he should be referred to the same as everyone else?

147

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: March 20, 2019, 05:42:58 PM »

Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?

The increased societal norm that one should be shown respect without having any requirement to show respect in return is a curious one to be sure.  It seems to be bipartisan and span all ages and income levels.  While not universal yet, it sure is widespread in the US.

I'm confused by the whole thing about "I deserve respect simply for being me" because it completely destroys the whole concept of what respect is even supposed to be.

You deserve to be treated with basic human dignity as you're a human being.

You deserve to be treated with respect once you've earned the right to be respected for something.

And of course, if you want to be treated respectfully, that also means you should be respecting others as well.

I think that, when people ask to be treated with respect, they mean human dignity.  It's not like people are asking others to bow and scrape just because they are [fill-in the blank].

In this case, they mean the respect that we show each other as human beings.  Not being called names, addressing a person as they would like to be addressed, treating them as one would any other human being.  Nothing extraordinary.

The problem, of course, is that once a person perceives someone else as not granting him that basic human-dignity level of respect, it is hard to give that other person such respect.

148

General Comments / Re: "Misgendering" hate crime

« on: March 20, 2019, 04:45:44 PM »

Laws like this can seem relatively benign in the short term but it's a path that doesn't end well if it's allowed to follow it's intended course.

And how can you say what the "intended course" is for this law?

The teacher was neither arrested, charged nor convicted of a "hate crime."  Someone just said to him that it would be considered so.  But what makes you think that person applied the law correctly, and wasn't just wildly speculating?

If the police didn't act as if he were breaking the law and the courts didn't agree, why should we think he was?

149

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media

« on: March 20, 2019, 04:06:08 PM »

Are you referring to conservative "snowflakes" or liberal "snowflakes" here, Seriati?  Or both types, since they are pretty much the same?

150

General Comments / Re: Electoral college reform

« on: March 20, 2019, 03:23:28 PM »

Yes, thank god for small favors.