Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 62

Thread: Mueller Investigation Yielded No Indictments

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Mueller Investigation Yielded No Indictments

    The media lied to you for 2+ years. Also lied to you to get you into Iraq / Libya / Syria and kill 1 million people. Many of you bought the various lies readily despite the most adamant cases made against...
    Your thoughts / what you've learned (if anything)

  2. #2
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    1.) Unless you're privy to information that the vast majority of us do not possess, then you have NOT seen the Mueller report, but only a Trump appointed stooge's (William Bar) cryptic summary of the Mueller report. So before you speak about lying, you might want to FIRST check the accuracy of your statements.

    2.) In actuality, Mueller's investigation did result in indictments for 34 individuals – seven of whom have been convicted so far – including some senior members of the Trump campaign (although none of the charges involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians).

    3.) Furthermore, no indictments, in and of itself, does not mean that there was no/0/null evidence of criminal conduct. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the exceedingly high standard the DOJ uses to indict. However, there could still be evidence of a conspiracy that simply does not rise to the level needed to indict in a criminal case. From Barr's own mouth, as it were: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Barr said Mueller found "evidence on both sides of the question." He said the investigation "did not establish" that Trump colluded with the Kremlin which is not the same thing as saying it established that Trump did not collude. One's inability to prove that a turd smells bad does not prove that the turd smells delightful. The problem is that Mueller (unwisely) deferred the decision to Barr who said he didn't see grounds for an obstruction case against the president.

    4.) All one needs to possess is the ability to google + rudimentary reading comprehension skills in order to debunk your faulty premise; if you want to have a real discussion, it's best to begin with the FACTS, and not a disingenuous framing that only makes you look intellectually dishonest and your intentions, suspect.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    1.) Unless you're privy to information that the vast majority of us do not possess, then you have NOT seen the Mueller report, but only a Trump appointed stooge's (William Bar) cryptic summary of the Mueller report. So before you speak about lying, you might want to FIRST check the accuracy of your statements.
    You've just ... now again mindlessly repeated what the news is saying word for word. Do you never learn? The news has lied to you for 2+ years and you are STILL being led on like a lemming...? You know nothing about William Bar. Why presume that he rather than the news is being dishonest with you? The report concluded no collusion and no evidence of collusion, no one disputes that. Clearly that's what it concluded - Mueller is not contesting the fact. Why would you assume that some scrap of information no one has heard of exists and is incriminating? Why doubt the reports findings? This was the most extensive investigation ever conducted, Mueller had access to everything under the sun. Every email, every phone call... everything. Why are you incapable of questioning this insane, baseless partisan determination that's been implanted into your head ...?


    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    3.) Furthermore, no indictments, in and of itself, does not mean that there was no/0/null evidence of criminal conduct. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the exceedingly high standard the DOJ uses to indict. However, there could still be evidence of a conspiracy that simply does not rise to the level needed to indict in a criminal case. From Barr's own mouth, as it were: "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.” Barr said Mueller found "evidence on both sides of the question." He said the investigation "did not establish" that Trump colluded with the Kremlin which is not the same thing as saying it established that Trump did not collude. One's inability to prove that a turd smells bad does not prove that the turd smells delightful. The problem is that Mueller (unwisely) deferred the decision to Barr who said he didn't see grounds for an obstruction case against the president.

    There is no reason to believe there might be some scrap of evidence hiding somewhere, or to question the reports conclusion. This is like a flying spaghetti monster fallacy. We don't technically know that bigfoot didn't violate your great great great grandmother and produce you but there's no evidence or reason to believe that happened. Barr said Trump has not been exonerated from obstruction of justice... I've seen no evidence of that either and I don't see how you can obstruct a crime that didn't happen but once again this has nothing to do with our topic, which is Russian collusion.
    I wonder if when the Mueller report is released you'll step back and say... ok now I see I was manipulated by the news. Or... more accurately, I was complicit in the lie for my own corrupt purposes, I knew all along it was a lie on a low level I just cooperated because it seemed to serve my own ends at the time. I really doubt you will. The truth is simply not in you, is it? It's amazing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    2.) In actuality, Mueller's investigation did result in indictments for 34 individuals – seven of whom have been convicted so far – including some senior members of the Trump campaign (although none of the charges involved a conspiracy between the campaign and Russians).
    I don't understand why you bothered to make this argument and then at the end of it acknowledge that none of the indictments had anything to do with collusion.. you've refuted your own point. The topic is Russian collusion. It was a hoax - political propaganda, of which there is alot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    4.) All one needs to possess is the ability to google + rudimentary reading comprehension skills in order to debunk your faulty premise; if you want to have a real discussion, it's best to begin with the FACTS, and not a disingenuous framing that only makes you look intellectually dishonest and your intentions, suspect.
    If you had any respect for facts (or critical thinking ability) you would not have been misled like a puppet into this hysteria for 2+ years by this political propaganda machine, chasing after this white whale of a "scrap of information maybe existing somewhere". If you had any critical thinking ability you'd be skeptical of the news at this point rather than doubling down and insisting there must still be some hidden scrap of incriminating information despite the reports findings. And you'd question the news rather than William Bar, a random person that has never lied to you and who you knew nothing about until 2 days ago. Just randomly googling and believing what you read is what got you into this mess, the corrupt input of the news and then this robotic output is precisely the problem. I doubt once the report is released it will even effect your thinking frankly. It's an amazing thing how deep the brainwashing goes.
    Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 03-27-2019 at 05:04 PM.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,194
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It just goes to show that the people's perception of "reality" can be constructed by the media narrative.

    This whole Russiagate thing was a dud from the start, it never existed and it never was a thing, it was a total hoax and a fabrication. It was likely created by the Clintons to justify losing to Trump, and the neoliberals for justifying increases in defense spending and the Russia-containment policy.

    It also goes to show that the majority of Americans are still racist against Russia, even if they disagree with Putin's rule. This whole "Russia is evil" thing has been going on in America for decades, and this is only the culmination of it.

  5. #5
    Muddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Ancapistan
    Posts
    2,339
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Can we just start the civil war already please?

  6. #6
    DRANG NACH BETA NF Oppai Anschluss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Location
    In the place
    TIM
    Beta ST 683 sx/so
    Posts
    397
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Furthermore, no indictments, in and of itself, does not mean that there was no/0/null evidence of criminal conduct.
    Rofl "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I didn't realize Donald Rumsfeld was on the forums. How's it going, Rummy? Still looking for those WMDs under people's beds?
    Beta ST 6w5 8w9 3w4 sx/so

    Every problem on earth can be solved by the liberal application of ordnance

    "Ultimately, man should not ask what the meaning of his life is, but rather he must recognize that it is he who is asked. In a word, each man is questioned by life; and he can only answer to life by answering for his own life."


  7. #7
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,220
    Mentioned
    218 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I haven't learned anything because I always knew the media was full of shit...still in the age of William Randolph Hearst. It's not just in the media, but in typology...fake socionics is on the rise with crackerjack definitions like "intuition of time" and "intuition of distance" and in the enneagram as well, the fauvres have mainstreamed multiple personality disorder (aka tritype)....Imagine that, people either knowingly and unknowingly identify themselves as having multiple personality disorder in spite of the fact the abundance of evidence contradicts the idea that people have other personality styles they switch to under stress (except in the case of having suffered severe childhood abuse/trauma). if you can convince people to identify with something that is substantially identical to MPD (unless they are just doing it for fun), its not much of a stretch what the media does. Afterall, that's what Yellow Journalism was all about.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-27-2019 at 11:48 PM.

  8. #8
    The Only EII In This Part Of The Internet Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,284
    Mentioned
    297 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    As has already been mentioned, Mueller's investigation resulted in several indictments of people employed by Trump. Barr, another Trump favourite, was still unable to completely absolve Trump of wrong doing.

    Barr seems to think that a sitting President cannot be indicted for any crime, so it should not be surprising that he has not indicted his boss and barred him from office.

    It is still possible that Congress will see the report, call Mueller to testify, and indict Trump.

    The Many Problems With the Barr Letter

  9. #9
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,220
    Mentioned
    218 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Michael Cohen was a weasel attorney and turncoat who could have easily made stuff up to get himself out of trouble...there needs to be a mandatory law put in place forcing would be rats to submit themselves to Lie Detector tests and provide adequate corroboration before taxpayer money gets wasted on Kangaroo hearings. How many times did the CNN propaganda machine give a platform to that other weasel Michael Avenatti to call Trump a crook. look who turned out to be the crook and now about to be tossed in the slammer and disbarred like Cohen...good riddance

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    As has already been mentioned, Mueller's investigation resulted in several indictments of people employed by Trump. Barr, another Trump favourite, was still unable to completely absolve Trump of wrong doing.

    Barr seems to think that a sitting President cannot be indicted for any crime, so it should not be surprising that he has not indicted his boss and barred him from office.

    It is still possible that Congress will see the report, call Mueller to testify, and indict Trump.

    The Many Problems With the Barr Letter
    Good luck. The AG's report and investigation notes are protected by several confidentiality privileges and federal laws that Congress themselves have passed. NY Times is the worst of the worst...but even there, the top headline of that article you link confesses that the Attorney General unilaterally concluded that Trump did not obstruct justice...ahem, sounds like total absolvement. So if the NY times is admitting it, then you've got big problems.
    Last edited by Kill4Me; 03-27-2019 at 11:48 PM.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    As has already been mentioned, Mueller's investigation resulted in several indictments of people employed by Trump.
    I don't understand why you've mentioned this again... it's irrelevant. There has been a ton of twisting and reframing information, and misleading naive people into believing there was Russian collusion. There has never been ANY evidence of Russian collusion. This is a problem. It's a problem because, among other things, this corrupt media machine ~got us into a series of wars that killed a million people~. Then they've attempted to undermine our system of government. And you were complicit in it. And you still are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Barr, another Trump favourite, was still unable to completely absolve Trump of wrong doing.

    Barr seems to think that a sitting President cannot be indicted for any crime, so it should not be surprising that he has not indicted his boss and barred him from office.

    It is still possible that Congress will see the report, call Mueller to testify, and indict Trump.
    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    All of congress is going to see the report shortly. There is no evidence that Barr has lied, and why would he? When the report is going to be released shortly, and he is merely following standard protocols in not publicly releasing it...? You didn't know who Barr was 2 days ago, now you're calling him "another Trump favorite" like you know something about him? You don't even know who he is. You have zero idea what you are talking about. Why do you pretend to have some remote clue as to what you are talking about?
    You're gona regurgitate the talking points of these news outlets and act like that's evidence. What do you expect, them to come out and say "yeah we lied to you, we're liars... we're a propaganda outlet.".

    Truth is you go along with these stories because they just conveniently align with your own personal motives. Well just because a bunch of political propaganda serves your own personal interests... this does not justify you cooperating with the lies and spreading them on the news behalf. In doing so you have betrayed everyone in society and proven yourself to be a manipulative, egoistic degenerate that cannot be trusted with any authority. Knowing full well this has been a hoax, and doubling down... there is just no excuse any longer.

    For all similarly sociopathic social parasites: we'll see where your little games get you in the end, that's all I'll say. This is war as far as I'm concerned. I for one will bring it to you. You will come to power over my dead body. I've got many other people on my side of this. Go crawl under your logs and plot your next scheme, I'll be waiting for it.
    Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 03-28-2019 at 04:51 PM.

  11. #11

  12. #12
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    OK, I’m going to thoroughly and exhaustively curb stomp your remedial ass one good time and then be done with you, because you’ve thus far illustrated that you don’t argue in “good faith,” and I can’t abide that. From where I stand, factual integrity is paramount.

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    You've just ... now again mindlessly repeated what the news is saying word for word. Do you never learn?
    First off, I zealously consume all manner of publications > books, empirical studies, newspapers, journals, etc... from perspectives that span the political and ideological gamut; AND AT THE SAME, I’m ever parsing, scrutinizing, conceptualizing, inferring, refining and structuring this data so that I have the best possible handle on it whenever I choose to assert it as accurate and disseminate it when making decisions. I also venture out and engage the world often and freely in order to conduct my own analysis and experimentation. Independent research is a HALLMARK of critical thinking ability. Therefore, the well-sourced conclusions I've reached and the stances I hold are anything but "mindless."

    FOH.

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    The news has lied to you for 2+ years and you are STILL being led on like a lemming...?
    What clear, verifiable evidence do you have to support your assertion that “the news has lied” concerning the Mueller investigation? While you’re at it, who or what entities constitute this “news?” And how are you defining “lied?” I require PROOF that supports your accusation, and not some bullshit yanked from the recesses of your tattered, loose, irritable bowels.

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    You know nothing about William Bar. Why presume that he rather than the news is being dishonest with you?
    On the contrary, I do know things about William Barr because his career, actions, words, ideas and world view have been made public and are easily accessible to those willing TO. FUCKING. READ.

    1.] Barr aided the 1988 Bush presidential campaign with its vice presidential selection process and was later appointed to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, a decision made in part because of his support for wide presidential powers and authority, Barr himself has said. At the Office of Legal Counsel, he informed legal opinions that influenced White House policy and action, and he produced a 10-page memo detailing a broad vision of the executive branch's abilities to refute Congress' attempts at oversight.

    Keeping in tandem with the unitary executive theory, a train of legal thought that envisions a standard of uncompromising presidential power from the Constitution, Barr's support for executive authority once laid the groundwork for a decision to almost fire an independent counsel who had doggedly pursued Bush.

    2.] Barr in 2001 said he had urged Bush to pardon a number of integral figures involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran and anti-government guerrillas in Nicaragua. Bush's decision to pardon these individuals (including one conviction, three guilty pleas, and two pending cases) is often listed among the most controversial examples of the president exercising pardon power in US history.

    3.] Barr’s confirmation for a second stint as attorney general was complicated by the disclosure that he had written a 19-page memo expressing deep skepticism about aspects of Mueller’s investigation, essentially like an audition, into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia–he questioned the legal theory that might permit Mueller to conclude that the president tried to obstruct the Russia inquiry. Worse, Barr suggested the public might never learn all the details of what the special counsel has found.

    What the above points (all of which are easily verifiable) illustrate is that Barr has shown a biased world view (and acted from that locus) in favor of wide executive powers, that is deeply sympathetic to Trump’s interests (the viability of his executive orders, the degree to which he/the President can be held accountable for his actions/indicted, etc...) and so it is rather reasonable to hold his overall agenda and murky conclusions re: the Mueller Report with some skepticism. Mind you, even Trump himself has asserted that had Barr been the Attorney General before Mueller had been appointed, the investigation wouldn’t have happened.

    Unlike you, strong critical thinkers do their best to evaluate in an objective manner, looking at something from both sides of an argument, while holding in tension the biases each side may possess. My admitted bias is that I fucking despise Trump, but am willing to concede to the FACTS, as they unfold and whatever they may be; but because Mueller’s Report has not been released IN TOTALITY, we don’t have access to ALL THE FACTS. Furthermore, Barr is currently obstructing the public from attaining everything there is to know, making him appear even more suspect than he already was.

    Having said that, what, pray tell, is your bias?

    Lol

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    The report concluded no collusion and no evidence of collusion, no one disputes that. Clearly, that's what it concluded - Mueller is not contesting the fact.
    1.) AGAIN, unless you are privy to information that the vast majority of the public do not possess, then YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE MUELLER REPORT CONCLUDED, but only snippets of information carefully chosen and worded by AG William Barr. Period.

    2.)Customarily, the Justice Department's special counsel rules do not directly allow for Mueller to make any public statements about his findings, though he may possibly be subject to subpoena by Congress. Instead, his confidential report must explain why he filed the charges he did and why he might have declined to bring charges against others. Barr has previously suggested that the public is unlikely to hear from Mueller directly. Furthermore, people who know Mueller say that they would be shocked if he’d ever do more than issue a brief statement indicating that a report had been submitted to the attorney general before going radio silent. Mueller's aversion to the public spotlight has been consistent and well documented across the duration of his vaunted public service.

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    Why would you assume that some scrap of information no one has heard of exists and is incriminating? Why doubt the reports findings? This was the most extensive investigation ever conducted, Mueller had access to everything under the sun. Every email, every phone call... everything. Why are you incapable of questioning this insane, baseless partisan determination that's been implanted into your head ...?
    Sigh...

    1.) Look, son, when prosecutors like Barr carefully choose their words and say that an investigation “did not establish” a “tacit or express” agreement with the Russian government, that doesn't mean that they concluded it didn't happen, or even that they don't believe it happened; it means that the investigation didn't produce enough information to prove that it happened conclusively, at a level sufficient to stand up in court. Without seeing Mueller's full report, we don't know whether this is a definite, hard conclusion about lack of coordination or a candid admission of insufficient evidence–the distinction matters.

    A.] It’s worth mentioning that Barr only cited Mueller's lack of evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the "Russia's government”; however, this would seem to leave out several major interactions with Russians, like convicted felon Paul Manafort covertly giving tons of polling data to Konstantin Kilimnik, or Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner meeting up at Trump Tower with that Kremlin-linked lawyer who was allegedly offering info on “Crooked Hillary.”

    B.] Barr limits the collusion absolution to two specific Russian operations: the manipulation of social media platforms and the hacking and dissemination of emails from Clinton's campaign and the DNC. Other apparent discussions between Trump associates and Russians that most included some sort of mutually beneficial "trade-off," such as Trump's Moscow tower project and Michael Flynn's secret talks about mitigating sanctions, have been put aside. Barr's letter doesn't show that Trump is innocent of collusion or obstruction. It shows that collusion and obstruction were defined to exclude what he did. This phrasing leaves open the possibility that Mueller found prevalent coordination with others who were not part of the government but were a few degrees of separation removed. AGAIN, for the cheap, pedestrian seats in the back, without seeing the actual report, we just don’t know, which is WHY it must be fully released and WHY a framing like yours is not only premature but dumb.

    2.) To clarify, none of this is to say Trump is LITERALLY a foreign agent directly answering to Putin–I’ve actually never believed as much because I’m not a simpleton. For those who understand and are capable of something called “context,” there is a middle ground between “no collusion” and Trump being a foreign agent. However, even if we extend the benefit of the doubt and say that he had only been acting in his own interest and of his own volition, many of his public actions (and heaven knows how many of his private actions) have fulfilled Russia’s chief agenda of demonizing/corrupting America’s institutional integrity and influence. The release of Mueller’s report would most probably aid in adding greater context to the many deeply concerning instances we already know about.

    3.) Considering the public record of the Trump campaign’s contacts with many Russians and its officials’repeated lies about those contacts, it is hard for critical thinkers/those who aren’t idiots to believe Mueller found nothing with widespread national security implications. I always knew that setting the bar for “collusion” at blatant criminality was never going to be good enough because American laws allow for all kinds of problematic, unethical behavior at the intersection of money and politics–which could stand to hurt US security and are treacherous in the long run. It’s critical thinking about these types of potentialities that demands one possess the ability to infer and draw conclusions based on the information presented–data doesn't always come with a summary that spells out what it means. You'll often need to assess the information given and draw conclusions based upon it.

    To that end, need I inform/remind you that aside from the 32 charges brought and 7 guilty pleas achieved by Mueller, there are 16 other investigations still in play, some that he passed along to federal/state prosecutors, other AG offices and some taken up by Congress? Investigations tangential to, but existing outside the (stupid) narrowly defined notion of “collusion with Russia?” How can that not heavily factor into how one approaches/thinks about this issue? Furthermore, if not from a plethora of information sources (and they are LEGION), who the fuck are we supposed to believe? The man who has literally lied thousands of times? The guy with all of the conflicts of interest and irrefutable ties to a foreign power that has long hated America’s guts? I mean...if these red herrings, glaring contradictions, inconsistencies, etc... don’t signal that there is still more to be uncovered, then you truly are a brain dead shill of the highest order. In this case, it takes far more effort to close one’s eyes to all the hanging threads, then to actually engage the hanging threads.

    Suffice to say, YOU, my (non) friend, do NOT think “critically.”

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    I wonder if when the Mueller report is released you'll step back and say... ok now I see I was manipulated by the news. Or... more accurately, I was complicit in the lie for my own corrupt purposes, I knew all along it was a lie on a low level I just cooperated because it seemed to serve my own ends at the time. I really doubt you will. The truth is simply not in you, is it? It's amazing.
    LOL ...lemme venture a guess...you had issues with compulsively licking lead-lined walls as a kid, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    If you had any respect for facts (or critical thinking ability) you would not have been misled like a puppet into this hysteria for 2+ years by this political propaganda machine, chasing after this white whale of a "scrap of information maybe existing somewhere". If you had any critical thinking ability you'd be skeptical of the news at this point rather than doubling down and insisting there must still be some hidden scrap of incriminating information despite the reports findings. And you'd question the news rather than William Bar, a random person that has never lied to you and who you knew nothing about until 2 days ago. Just randomly googling and believing what you read is what got you into this mess, the corrupt input of the news and then this robotic output is precisely the problem. I doubt once the report is released it will even effect your thinking frankly. It's an amazing thing how deep the brainwashing goes.
    Sigh...

    Allow me to do what your parents evidently neglected to do--you don't have to fear the unknown, sweetness. It really will be alright. Or not, but don’t be a pitiable, cowardly bitch about it, clinging like a dingleberry to the ass of a known pathological liar, just because you have trouble/openly resist/distrust "reading between the lines" and establishing conceptual logical connections between bits of data, whether loosely or tightly related. And funny enough, you barely even cling to what’s in front of your fucking face, considering how often you conveniently duck and dodge the facts. You strike me as the same kind of dullard plebeian that would've staked his life on the belief that the earth was flat 500 years ago. Your screen name be damned because you certainly are NO scholar unless your studied discipline is unadulterated ignorance and buffoonery.

    FOH.
    Last edited by Alonzo; 03-29-2019 at 12:20 AM.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,194
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mueller didn't indict anyone over Russia collusion, because there was nothing in the report that suggest that there was any.

    So what, Mueller was this savior who was going to charge Trump, and now he's too stupid and cowardly to do so?

    I guess some people aren't going to shut up until they see the report, but it's just wishful thinking at this point. There are much worse things to go after than this dubious Russia collusion.

  14. #14
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Another brilliant display of what happens when siblings fuck under power lines....

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Mueller didn't indict anyone over Russia collusion, because there was nothing in the report that suggest that there was any.
    Did you work for the special counsel and/or do you now work for the DOJ? Are you now or have you ever been Professor Charles Xavier, Jean Grey, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort or a slew of other fake ass telepaths? No? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP because you don't know what's in the Mueller Report; you only know what Barr doctored and manipulated. I don't understand why some of you risk looking (and exposing yourselves as) positively STUPID for something so easily verifiable--that being, you don't have all the facts. PERIODT.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    So what, Mueller was this savior who was going to charge Trump, and now he's too stupid and cowardly to do so?
    Regardless of what others may believe, I never saw him as some savior--sorry, not sorry, but I don't trust SLIs with things that involve too much foresight and connecting the dots; they are adept at amassing and organizing the data but beyond that, many of them refuse to look down the pipeline and venture a decent fucking guess about things not directly in front of their stiff ass faces. And, IMO, that's at least part of why we're now in this mess. Some pale Slimer looking MFer wrote a 19 page memo about the suspect shittiness of Mueller's investigation, and then went on to refuse to commit to releasing the full report during his confirmation, and yet Mueller didn't think to give a recommendation FULL STOP in light of this, especially considering how unprecedented of a situation (CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS) he had been operating within--and that's the thing, SLIs tend not to fare well with "unprecedented" shit. I don't think Mueller is stupid or cowardly; he just lacked ample foresight and stuck too closely to that honorable, dutiful, "keep your head down and press on" bullshit that works well when you're some middle manager at Office Depot but not so well when dealing with corrupted, unscrupulous sociopaths of the highest order.

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    I guess some people aren't going to shut up until they see the report, but it's just wishful thinking at this point. There are much worse things to go after than this dubious Russia collusion.
    Agreed, like the 16 other open investigations into Trump's WTFuckery, ultimately related to matters of National Security seeing as how most of them involve the extent to which a hostile foreign power possessed (DOJ did find that Russia meddled in our election) and continues to possess undue influence over our democratic process/institutions, which directly contributes to WHO RUNS THE GOVERNMENT, which directly relates to the policies put forth and enacted, which then either positively or negatively (usually this) impacts those living under its dominion--took me a fucking second to connect all those dots. The point being, THIS SHIT MATTERS. The MFers in power, and how they got there and might continue to get there, MATTERS. Would I MUCH rather be focused on climate change? Of course, but 1.) I believe that it is, in fact, possible to walk and chew gum at the same time and 2.) as long as we have unabated shills who, directly or indirectly, work in ways that undermine the will of the people (*FUCKBOY REPUBLICANS*AHEM*), things like climate change will not get the attention it so urgently demands; therefore, these bastards and all their puppeteers/enablers MUST. GO. the sooner the better, and that means getting to the bottom of who "sold us out." And cracked voices like yours and the chromosome depleted peon that created this thread, do NOT help.

  15. #15
    The Only EII In This Part Of The Internet Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,284
    Mentioned
    297 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    The Starr Report into Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky was published online 2 days after it was released, and even came out in paperback, selling 160,000 copies.

    It is notable that Barr has decided not to publish Mueller's report.

  16. #16
    user title The Perpetual Now's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    403
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm not a big fan of Trump but I thought it odd how people on either side have been so quick to assert his guilt or innocence based more on emotions than any particular set of evidence.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,194
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Another brilliant display of what happens when siblings fuck under power lines....

    Did you work for the special counsel and/or do you now work for the DOJ? Are you now or have you ever been Professor Charles Xavier, Jean Grey, Darth Vader, Lord Voldemort or a slew of other fake ass telepaths? No? THEN SHUT THE FUCK UP because you don't know what's in the Mueller Report; you only know what Barr doctored and manipulated. I don't understand why some of you risk looking (and exposing yourselves as) positively STUPID for something so easily verifiable--that being, you don't have all the facts. PERIODT.

    Regardless of what others may believe, I never saw him as some savior--sorry, not sorry, but I don't trust SLIs with things that involve too much foresight and connecting the dots; they are adept at amassing and organizing the data but beyond that, many of them refuse to look down the pipeline and venture a decent fucking guess about things not directly in front of their stiff ass faces. And, IMO, that's at least part of why we're now in this mess. Some pale Slimer looking MFer wrote a 19 page memo about the suspect shittiness of Mueller's investigation, and then went on to refuse to commit to releasing the full report during his confirmation, and yet Mueller didn't think to give a recommendation FULL STOP in light of this, especially considering how unprecedented of a situation (CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS) he had been operating within--and that's the thing, SLIs tend not to fare well with "unprecedented" shit. I don't think Mueller is stupid or cowardly; he just lacked ample foresight and stuck too closely to that honorable, dutiful, "keep your head down and press on" bullshit that works well when you're some middle manager at Office Depot but not so well when dealing with corrupted, unscrupulous sociopaths of the highest order.

    Agreed, like the 16 other open investigations into Trump's WTFuckery, ultimately related to matters of National Security seeing as how most of them involve the extent to which a hostile foreign power possessed (DOJ did find that Russia meddled in our election) and continues to possess undue influence over our democratic process/institutions, which directly contributes to WHO RUNS THE GOVERNMENT, which directly relates to the policies put forth and enacted, which then either positively or negatively (usually this) impacts those living under its dominion--took me a fucking second to connect all those dots. The point being, THIS SHIT MATTERS. The MFers in power, and how they got there and might continue to get there, MATTERS. Would I MUCH rather be focused on climate change? Of course, but 1.) I believe that it is, in fact, possible to walk and chew gum at the same time and 2.) as long as we have unabated shills who, directly or indirectly, work in ways that undermine the will of the people (*FUCKBOY REPUBLICANS*AHEM*), things like climate change will not get the attention it so urgently demands; therefore, these bastards and all their puppeteers/enablers MUST. GO. the sooner the better, and that means getting to the bottom of who "sold us out." And cracked voices like yours and the chromosome depleted peon that created this thread, do NOT help.
    Well I wonder if you're ever going to apologize for the hysterical & unwarranted attacks that you've hurled at people that disagree with you, and also for the accusation that Barr is lying, doctoring and manipulating, if nothing of sorts of "Russia collusion" is found on the report. But given what has happened after the collapse of Russiagate, probably not...

    Quote Originally Posted by Doctor Weird View Post
    I'm not a big fan of Trump but I thought it odd how people on either side have been so quick to assert his guilt or innocence based more on emotions than any particular set of evidence.
    Well the Mueller investigation is already over, and he has concluded from over 2 years worth of investigation that consists of 2800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, that no evidence over Russia collusion has been found on anyone. That should pretty much clear the case, but desperate people are still clinging on.

    So a conspiracy theory has just turned into yet another conspiracy theory: That Barr who summarized the Mueller report is lying and manipulating. Ok, but why would he do that? And why wouldn't Mueller himself indict anyone over collusions with Russia?

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    OK, I’m going to thoroughly and exhaustively curb stomp your remedial ass one good time and then be done with you, because you’ve thus far illustrated that you don’t argue in “good faith,” and I can’t abide that. From where I stand, factual integrity is paramount.
    First off, I zealously consume all manner of publications > books, empirical studies, newspapers, journals, etc... from perspectives that span the political and ideological gamut; AND AT THE SAME, I’m ever parsing, scrutinizing, conceptualizing, inferring, refining and structuring this data so that I have the best possible handle on it whenever I choose to assert it as accurate and disseminate it when making decisions. I also venture out and engage the world often and freely in order to conduct my own analysis and experimentation. Independent research is a HALLMARK of critical thinking ability. Therefore, the well-sourced conclusions I've reached and the stances I hold are anything but "mindless.”
    FOH.
    “Factual integrity Is paramount” – lol. Had you been a “factual indepenent thinker” you would not have been duped by these propaganda outlets for 2 years into believing a lie for which there was absolutely no evidence. Scientific thinking is rooted in skepticism. A scientifically minded person does not assume that a claim for which they have absolutely no evidence is true and then search for evidence to exhaustively disprove the claim. Your “zealous consumption” of political propaganda and unconscious bias has led to you assuming every random lie the news comes up with could potentially be true, as you have no way to disprove the lie. This thinking opens you up to being relentlessly manipulated: the news merely must come up with a lie that cannot be disproven and vuala, they have you arguing for the “objective possibility” of it. Truthfully you are blinded by (and unconscious of) your partisan biases, fundamentally willing to consider lies that serve your purposes. For your purposes, if the news lies turn out to be untrue than at least they were convenient and self serving in the meantime. My point is that there is absolutely no evidence or reason or believe that any of these claims are true. I hope you understand.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    What clear, verifiable evidence do you have to support your assertion that “the news has lied” concerning the Mueller investigation? While you’re at it, who or what entities constitute this “news?” And how are you defining “lied?” I require PROOF that supports your accusation, and not some bullshit yanked from the recesses of your tattered, loose, irritable bowels.
    Your base position should be skepticism. The news lies, for starters, merely by their failure to maintain skepticism. The raising of a question of concern for which there is no evidence but which serves a political aim is a lie, the lie is implicitly “we have reason to believe something is going on here”. But they have lied explicitly countless times, why don’t you go watch a compilation of them talking about this? Many of them outright said there was “incontrovertible evidence of collusion”. They said that many, many times. Well there wasn’t, and we know that now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    1.] On the contrary, I do know things about William Barr because his career, actions, words, ideas and world view have been made public and are easily accessible to those willing TO. FUCKING. READ.

    Barr aided the 1988 Bush presidential campaign with its vice presidential selection process and was later appointed to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, a decision made in part because of his support for wide presidential powers and authority, Barr himself has said. At the Office of Legal Counsel, he informed legal opinions that influenced White House policy and action, and he produced a 10-page memo detailing a broad vision of the executive branch's abilities to refute Congress' attempts at oversight.

    Keeping in tandem with the unitary executive theory, a train of legal thought that envisions a standard of uncompromising presidential power from the Constitution, Barr's support for executive authority once laid the groundwork for a decision to almost fire an independent counsel who had doggedly pursued Bush.
    And my point is that you are merely, once again, regurgitating what the news has told you. You don’t actually know what you’re talking about. For example, did you read the memo? You say “a 10 page memo detailing…”. You didn’t read the memo (and don’t pretend to me that you read it). You’re just repeating things, you’re not ~thinking~. You are copy-pasting. For all you know that memo contains 2 lines and his statement in it was perfectly reasonable and justifiable. You just have no clue what you are talking about, that’s my point. You are an input->output machine.
    What independent council? How did it lay the groundwork? You don’t actually understand these situations. Two days ago you knew absolutely nothing about Barr. All the sudden you’re an expert on his character – No, you know what these propaganda outlets have told you. You have a shallow understanding of him and of your material at best. Learn to be skeptical. If you don’t KNOW what you’re talking about – “know” in that sense that you have a complete and thorough understanding of the topic, a gut intuition of it; if you don’t KNOW anything about the independent council, the memo, the groundwork… than you’ve become an input -> output machine for the news. You are wide open to being manipulated.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    2.] Barr in 2001 said he had urged Bush to pardon a number of integral figures involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which involved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran and anti-government guerrillas in Nicaragua. Bush's decision to pardon these individuals (including one conviction, three guilty pleas, and two pending cases) is often listed among the most controversial examples of the president exercising pardon power in US history.

    3.] Barr’s confirmation for a second stint as attorney general was complicated by the disclosure that he had written a 19-page memo expressing deep skepticism about aspects of Mueller’s investigation, essentially like an audition, into alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia–he questioned the legal theory that might permit Mueller to conclude that the president tried to obstruct the Russia inquiry. Worse, Barr suggested the public might never learn all the details of what the special counsel has found.
    Detail the Iran-Contra scandal. Tell me why the individuals pardoned should not have been pardoned. What was the US motive in supplying weapons and what was the geopolitical significance of Nicaragua? What was Barrs argument for why the people should have been pardoned? Why do you disagree and how does this demonstrate a lack of character in Barr?
    He has every reason to be skeptical of the Mueller investigation. Where is this 19 page memo? (that’s a hell of a long memo). Did you read it? You probably should have read it, maybe you wouldn’t have been misled for 2 years into believing this Russian collusion scandal had you read the memo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    What the above points (all of which are easily verifiable) illustrate is that Barr has shown a biased world view (and acted from that locus) in favor of wide executive powers, that is deeply sympathetic to Trump’s interests (the viability of his executive orders, the degree to which he/the President can be held accountable for his actions/indicted, etc...) and so it is rather reasonable to hold his overall agenda and murky conclusions re: the Mueller Report with some skepticism. Mind you, even Trump himself has asserted that had Barr been the Attorney General before Mueller had been appointed, the investigation wouldn’t have happened.
    The assumption Barr is lying is built on the assumption that there was indeed Russian collusion, which we still have no scrap of evidence for – you can’t even justify the base assumption of your suspicion.
    Besides this, the mere fact he has a republican worldview is not sufficient reason to conclude he’s lying. To conclude he is likely lying you’d need to demonstrate character flaws, namely a tendency to undermine justice in a partisan manner. None of your examples demonstrated this. His writing of a memo (which you didn’t read) expressing skepticism over the Mueller report is completely reasonable (and you should have read that report yourself). The other 10 page memo about executive branch overriding congressional oversight is vague and you haven’t shown any wrongdoing, or even described what the memo said… because you didn’t even read the memo. You have yet to demonstrate that you fully understand what happened with the Iran Contra scandal (so go google it); i.e. what the US motives were in Nicaragua, or give an argument for why the government officials participating should not have been pardoned.
    You have also not addressed the fact that Barr lying makes no practical sense as the report will be seen by congress shortly. Or the fact this was the most thorough investigation we’ve ever seen (Mueller had full access to everything including national security internet databases)… or that it’s not even likely that we’d run into evidence without indictments. But fine, you want to pretend you are an expert on Barr who you indeed know nothing about (have never met the man), I’ll just wait until the full report is released and then come back into this thread and remind you that we tried to reason with you, but you bought into the lies because they aligned with your personal motives.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    Unlike you, strong critical thinkers do their best to evaluate in an objective manner, looking at something from both sides of an argument, while holding in tension the biases each side may possess. My admitted bias is that I fucking despise Trump, but am willing to concede to the FACTS, as they unfold and whatever they may be; but because Mueller’s Report has not been released IN TOTALITY, we don’t have access to ALL THE FACTS. Furthermore, Barr is currently obstructing the public from attaining everything there is to know, making him appear even more suspect than he already was.
    There are no facts suggesting that there was ever any collusion, the entire inquiry is predicated on that. It’s that simple. You are led along like a lemming in the following manner: first, your willingness to consider questions for which there is no evidence but which serve your purposes. Secondly, news outlets with full access to information can simply choose which facts to present you with, framing them however they please and choosing the questions to dangle in front of you. They can also come up with new questions which cannot be disproven every time they are cornered, like they’re doing now. Insisting that you are being objective, your partisan bias (obviously F is a repressed function in your case) turns you into a mindless lemming and you are led along via your unconscious subjectivity (which you have pushed outside of your awareness). Believing in inane nonsense, unable to see that you are being shamelessly manipulated and used like a puppet… you only make a complete embarrassment of yourself when the truth comes out. It is quite sad you have fallen this far.
    Quote Originally Posted by Alonzo View Post
    FOH.
    Is this supposed to be a sneeze?
    Looks like your TREX is having a spaz and sneezing.
    You wrote more but I can’t sit here all day and go over the rest of that babble. You are a tad autistic… I tried to tell you that the news was misleading you, but I just cannot continue this back and fourth. It’s completely fruitless, no progress is ever made…
    Have a nice sneeze!

  19. #19
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,800
    Mentioned
    872 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Back when Trump said this:



    I knew he put his foot in his own mouth and added fuel to a fire that wanted to see him burn. Even if he is not guilty he makes himself look guilty and shady by his actions. He lacks self control and is emotionally volatile so whatever troubles he finds himself in they are of his own making. If he had more sense he would know when to keep his mouth shut and listen to his advisers so that the country and media would have nothing to use against him. He is not a victim even though he wants everyone to believe he is. He is the ringleader to this circus.

    People love to see his tweets because it is like surreal and "wtf, this is our president?" to some and "hell yeah, this is our president!" to others. There is something so ludicrous and ironic about the whole thing that it becomes another form of mindless entertainment. He makes himself into a viral meme.

    I was not following the investigation so only knew some things in passing. If he is not guilty it is more of a relief to know he is just foolish and not a willing conspirator. I think we all know by now that anything Trump does is first and foremost is in his and his family's best interests. Including becoming president. You have to be willfully ignorant not to see that. Let's wait and see what kind of legacy he leaves behind. He might even surprise us all.

    I am just the messenger don't kill me.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Back when Trump said this:



    I knew he put his foot in his own mouth and added fuel to a fire that wanted to see him burn. Even if he is not guilty he makes himself look guilty and shady by his actions. He lacks self control and is emotionally volatile so whatever troubles he finds himself in they are of his own making. If he had more sense he would know when to keep his mouth shut and listen to his advisers so that the country and media would have nothing to use against him. He is not a victim even though he wants everyone to believe he is. He is the ringleader to this circus.

    People love to see his tweets because it is like surreal and "wtf, this is our president?" to some and "hell yeah, this is our president!" to others. There is something so ludicrous and ironic about the whole thing that it becomes another form of mindless entertainment. He makes himself into a viral meme.

    I was not following the investigation so only knew some things in passing. If he is not guilty it is more of a relief to know he is just foolish and not a willing conspirator. I think we all know by now that anything Trump does is first and foremost is in his and his family's best interests. Including becoming president. You have to be willfully ignorant not to see that. Let's wait and see what kind of legacy he leaves behind. He might even surprise us all.

    I am just the messenger don't kill me.
    He stirs up controversy to get attention in order to promote his various causes. He has thus far proven effective. Perhaps he is immature in his approach, but he is also up against 80% negative news coverage and he has to find a way to speak over those people. He has to get his message out... there is often no other way to get the message out.
    You say he is only preserving his own interests and that of his family. Why then is he finally the one to end these neverending wars where these compassionate, altruistic persons before him only waged endless war for the last 60 years...? Those wars were about power and economic interests.
    This economy needs stability, at the rate we're going the currency is liable to hyperinflate in 50 years. What will happen to the average unemployed person on SSI when the government programs become insolvent due to out of control debt? Medicare for all sounds great, the only problem is it isn't sustainable and in time it'll be medicare for no one. You can't tell me that's compassionate - it's short term compassionate but in long term it's turning a blind eye to the reality of things. The only way to stabilize the debt is to grow the economy... that is what he is trying to do.
    I don't know why you're reacting to what I said to you the way you are, it's nothing I haven't said to you before. But that's alright. At least you are fighting back, and standing by what you believe. I suppose its progress.
    From the outside what you see is a circus... it's made very digestible. It's really an information war ... (alex jones stole that term).
    Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 03-29-2019 at 09:54 PM.

  21. #21
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,800
    Mentioned
    872 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    He stirs up controversy to get attention in order to promote his various causes. He has thus far proven effective. Perhaps he is immature in his approach, but he is also up against 80% negative news coverage and he has to find a way to speak over those people. He has to get his message out... there is often no other way to get the message out.
    You say he is only preserving his own interests and that of his family. Why then is he finally the one to end these neverending wars where these compassionate, altruistic persons before him only waged endless war for the last 60 years...? Those wars were about power and economic interests.
    This economy needs stability, at the rate we're going the currency is liable to hyperinflate in 50 years. What will happen to the average unemployed person on SSI when the government programs become insolvent due to out of control debt? Medicare for all sounds great, the only problem is it isn't sustainable and in time it'll be medicare for no one. You can't tell me that's compassionate - it's short term compassionate but in long term it's turning a blind eye to the reality of things. The only way to stabilize the debt is to grow the economy... that is what he is trying to do.
    I don't know why you are reacting to what I said to you the way you are, it's nothing I haven't said to you before. But that's alright. At least you are fighting back, and standing by what you believe. I suppose its really progress.
    From the outside what you see is a circus... it's made very digestible. It's really an information war ... (alex jones stole that term).
    I was not reacting to what you said, sorry if it came off that way. I just said what I was thinking for awhile. It really isn't even related to this thread. More about me coming to terms with the whole thing to make sense of it. Since I rarely watch the news I do not know enough to speak on the issues. As I said in another post, I think if Hillary had won we might have actually ended up in a greater war. I don't know why but it is just a feeling.

    You know way more about politics than I do. I think ending wars is ultimately in the best interest of his family and future generations of his family. I really hope for the sake of this country that he does make positive changes for the world in the time he has left.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    I was not reacting to what you said, sorry if it came off that way. I just said what I was thinking for awhile. It really isn't even related to this thread. More about me coming to terms with the whole thing to make sense of it. Since I rarely watch the news I do not know enough to speak on the issues. As I said in another post, I think if Hillary had won we might have actually ended up in a greater war. I don't know why but it is just a feeling.

    You know way more about politics than I do. I think ending wars is ultimately in the best interest of his family and future generations of his family. I really hope for the sake of this country that he does make positive changes for the world in the time he has left.
    You don't think he sees any moral reason to end the wars? Well we just completely disagree on that. I will concede that he has not been the most compassionate person at the border. If you wanted to argue that he is cruel and harsh with the illegal immigrants... and selfish. Well yes. And I didn't support his immigration policy, though I do think the border should be secured. I think he sees the border as a giant cost and he sees the country moving toward an economic collapse. But he could be more compassionate towards those people.

  23. #23
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    10,800
    Mentioned
    872 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scholarlyhost View Post
    You don't think he sees any moral reason to end the wars? Well we just completely disagree on that. I will concede that he has not been the most compassionate person at the border. If you wanted to argue that he is cruel and harsh with the illegal immigrants... to a degree yes. And I didn't support his immigration policy, though I do think the border should be secured. I think he sees the border as a giant cost the country and he sees the country moving toward an economic collapse. But he could be more compassionate towards illegal immigrants.
    Unlike some I do believe he is fueled by many moral issues that he holds dear. He probably has compassion too. At least that is what his friends say. He makes his values pretty clear and always has. That means his moral issues will clash with other people's but that's life not just politics.

    When it comes to global economics and politics I am out of my element. The thing about the immigrants that bothered me most was separating the children from the parents. I think the whole set up is probably traumatizing to some kids but kids can be resilient. Hopefully none are being abused or end up permanently lost due to poor handling of data on who the parents are. I am going to bow out of the conversation now.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Unlike some I do believe he is fueled by many moral issues that he holds dear. He probably has compassion too. At least that is what his friends say. He makes his values pretty clear and always has. That means his moral issues will clash with other people's but that's life not just politics.

    When it comes to global economics and politics I am out of my element. The thing about the immigrants that bothered me most was separating the children from the parents. I think the whole set up is probably traumatizing to some kids but kids can be resilient. Hopefully none are being abused or end up permanently lost due to poor handling of data on who the parents are. I am going to bow out of the conversation now.
    Ok. Well just so you understand that situation, because the news really did a great job promoting that-
    They reversed that law within a week of the public outcry. However Trump went too far and, before reversing the law (which he should have done immediately) tried to use the issue as leverage to get the larger immigration package passed (he bundled it in with the immigration package). But after that flopped and he just executive order reversed the law. That was a law that had been in place for years, though, it was just Obama did not enforce immigration law so it wasn't implemented the same. As of today they still separate children but only when parents are felons, no longer all families. This is actually necessary, you have alot of crime at the border.. you have some serious abuse situations of children happening at the border. Open borders incentivize black markets which attract crime...
    But when he tried to bundle it in with the larger package, using it as leverage... I immediately said to myself. Trump that is a really bad idea, you don't mess with children... it's political suicide. He was just crossing a line with that one, and thinking "the ends justify the means". But that was extremely stupid. He realized it after the public response but the news took that story and promoted it like it was ongoing and still is ongoing. The news is absolutely merciless and hellbent on making you believe the apocalypse is happening.
    Last edited by cR4z3dr4T; 03-29-2019 at 10:45 PM.

  25. #25
    In Transition Raver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    TIM
    Ne-IEE 6w7 sp/sx
    Posts
    4,612
    Mentioned
    185 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    This is not rocket science folks. The Russian collusion conspiracy theory was a load of hogwash spawned by media spin doctors. If you believe in it fully then that means you are either completely brain washed, brain dead or both. The fact that mueller's investigation caught several high profile figures with corruption is besides the point. It is as redundant as saying: "I went fishing in the ocean today and caught some fish". Of course there is corruption involved among politics and business, that is some captain obvious stuff there.

    They just don't get caught until you put a magnifying glass on it like the Weinstein scandal. I am glad I don't watch the news, I don't want to be pumped full of bull on the daily until my thoughts are merely just regurgitated from the media farce. Also who even cares at this point if Trump was involved with Russia because even if he was, whatever he did was a drop in the bucket compared to what that snake in a suit Hillary Clinton has done.
    "Nothing happens until the pain of staying the same outweighs the pain of change."

    Ne-IEE
    6w7 sp/sx
    6w7-9w1-4w5

  26. #26
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well I wonder if you're ever going to apologize for the hysterical & unwarranted attacks that you've hurled at people that disagree with you, and also for the accusation that Barr is lying, doctoring and manipulating, if nothing of sorts of "Russia collusion" is found on the report. But given what has happened after the collapse of Russiagate, probably not...

    I’m not inclined to apologize because I believe that you’re being rightfully berated for your dangerous willful obtuseness and intellectually dishonesty. The only other alternative readings would be that a.] you are woefully ignorant and uninformed, which is highly likely, though unsympathetic because if you don’t know, then you should again, SHUT THE FUCK UP, and metaphorically remain seated; AND/OR b.] you actually have some sort of cognitive deficit/learning disability (perhaps a mental rigidity that reduces the ability to contextualize), which is also quite possible, and in that case, I’d refrain from outright insulting your intelligence going forward, but still implore you to SHUT THE FUCK UP and remain metaphorically seated. So which is it? Pick your poison.


    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well the Mueller investigation is already over, and he has concluded from over 2 years worth of investigation that consists of 2800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, that no evidence over Russia collusion has been found on anyone. That should pretty much clear the case, but desperate people are still clinging on.


    So a conspiracy theory has just turned into yet another conspiracy theory: That Barr who summarized the Mueller report is lying and manipulating. Ok, but why would he do that? And why wouldn't Mueller himself indict anyone over collusions with Russia?
    What you anti-literate MFers don’t get is that one can’t dispute the facts here:

    1.) The overwhelming majority of the public do NOT have access to the FULL 400 page (excluding tables and appendices) Mueller Report–without that being released we don’t have the entire story, and why is that? Because we only have Barr’s summary of Mueller’s SUMMARY. In a hyper-lengthy earlier post, I thoroughly detailed and rationalized why the above FACT is so important, which would directly address your concerns but evidently, you don’t like to read and/or hate the truth. But I’ll carry on for others out there who actually want to make informed decisions based off of the facts.

    Someone with far more time on their hands broke it down in the clearest of terms and it all makes perfect sense, considering what we know. The only caveat is that, YOU MUST FUCKING READ IT, something many in this thread evidently have an aversion to.


    https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/sta...82594749505536


    1/ Barr begins by conceding that, in accordance with DOJ regulations, the report he has received from Mueller only summarizes "prosecution or declination" decisions—meaning that it may well not include much of the raw evidence Mueller compiled, and be sparsely conclusory in form.

    2/ Though Mueller may not have included raw evidence in his report—which mainly summarizes who he charged or didn't and why—Barr observes that "the report explains that his staff thoroughly investigated" the allegations, thus confusing the raw evidence and what Mueller told Barr.

    3/ This means that we have not 2 but 3 data-points to work with:

    (1) Mueller's case file.
    (2) Mueller's summary of prosecution and declination decisions.
    (3) Barr's summary of Mueller's summary.

    Barr writes his letter in a way that quickly conflates #1 and #2—and it *matters*.


    4/ So let's say Data-point #1 (Mueller's case file) establishes 80% proof of a crime being committed; Data-point #2 (Mueller's summary of prosecution and declination decisions) might simply say, "not enough to indict." Barr's letter (Data-point #3) can then *imply* "no evidence."

    5/ As we've seen—and will see in this thread—that's exactly what Barr does: he carefully chooses his words in describing Mueller's "declination" decisions in a way that obscures how much evidence there may have been, leaving the impression—instead—there may have been none at all.

    6/ Barr had a choice here: he could summarize the evidence or summarize the *summary* of the evidence. The decision he made was to summarize the summary, knowing that him doing so would feed into Team Trump's false narrative that criminal evidence exists in an all-or-none binary.

    7/ But by *leading off* his "summary of the summary" by referencing the raw evidence—"the Special Counsel and his staff thoroughly investigated..."—it sounds like he's working from the raw evidence, not a summary of the evidence. This is a pretty basic legalistic bait-and-switch.

    8/ The next thing Barr does is outrageously mischaracterize the scope of Mueller's investigation—wildly misquoting the public appointment letter that led to the 22-month Mueller probe. Why mischaracterize a public document like this (especially such a famous one)? Let's find out.

    9/ Here's the DOJ document that authorized and set the scope for Mueller's investigation. Note, first, that it tasked Mueller with investigating "coordination" between Team Trump and the Russian government; it pointedly did *not* use the word "conspiracy." https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-re...67231/download

    10/ "Coordination" is far broader than "conspiracy," as a) it comes from counterintelligence—and thus includes far more conduct than the criminal system would recognize as problematic, and b) it has a broad lay meaning on par with "collusion"—not a narrow statute like Conspiracy.

    11/ But note too that Mueller's appointment letter tasked him with fully investigating "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"—for instance if Mueller found insufficient evidence to charge Conspiracy but found evidence of Bribery, he could pursue it.

    12/ Conspiracy requires an *agreement* of some kind—a "meeting of the minds"—with an illegal purpose, then an *act in furtherance* of the agreement to achieve an illegal end. The end needn't be achieved, but some agreement—here, with "the Russian government"—*would* be necessary.

    13/ Here's the key point on this: As Mueller began his work, *no one in America was accusing Trump of engaging in a covert illegal agreement with a Russian government entity*. Not the IRA, not the GRU, not the FSB. *Nor had Trump done that*. Which is why he immediately denied it.

    14/ Trump found the one type of collusion he *hadn't* engaged in—a covert, before-the-fact agreement (Conspiracy) with the IRA or GRU to (respectively) use psy-ops on or hack America—and denied it. Unfortunately, that was a small part of the "coordination" Mueller was looking at.

    15/ What Trump *was* being accused of—and which he couldn't deny, because, as we already know from public evidence, *he definitely did it*—was allowing his foreign policy on Russian sanctions to be the product of Bribery (one of two enumerated impeachable offenses, with Treason).

    16/ The Trump Tower Moscow-for-sanctions relief quid pro quo Trump was accused of was *never* chargeable as Conspiracy—it would be Bribery or maybe Aiding and Abetting (After the Fact) Russian interference by agreeing to unilaterally pay Putin trillions, and thus encouraging him.

    17/ So with all that in mind, now look at how Barr mischaracterizes Mueller's investigation (having already set himself up to *only* be producing a "summary of a summary," not any underlying evidence Mueller might have developed on Bribery, Aiding and Abetting, or anything else):

    18/ Wow—that's wrong on multiple counts, as you can see. Not only does it limit Mueller's evidence to Conspiracy—though we can't know yet if Mueller unnecessarily so limited himself or if Barr dishonestly limited his summary that way—but he makes another major inexplicable error.

    19/ Barr summarizes the collusion evidence as being (a) *only* a matter of the narrow criminal statute of Conspiracy *and* (b) *only* Conspiracy with the Russian government "in its efforts to interfere in the election." Wow—that's totally not what Mueller's appointment was about.

    20/ What Barr has done is *adopt wholesale* Trump's definition of "collusion": the narrowest possible definition, which involves *only* a single type of crime (Conspiracy) with *only* a single entity (the Russian government) and *only* on a single topic ("election interference").

    21/ The problem is that that definition *in no way fit* the collusion Trump was *actually* being accused of—which involved (a) Bribery, (b) by Russian agents, affiliates, or cutouts, (c) on the subject of trading U.S. sanctions policy for loans or deals with Trump and his family.
    22/ So when Barr then boasts about how many resources Mueller devoted to his work, he does so amidst a massive confusion he himself created and hasn't resolved—did Mueller commit all those resources to an insanely narrow collusion probe? Or is Barr mischaracterizing the evidence?

    23/ So here's where Barr goes off the rails: he says the only collusive crime Mueller looked at was whether Americans "joined the [two] Russian conspiracies" to influence the election—the IRA and GRU conspiracies—which would be a federal crime (Conspiracy). But that's 100% wrong.

    24/ It's wrong because that's far narrower than Mueller's appointed task—so either Mueller self-limited himself because he knew as many as 20 other federal/state investigations were in a position to look at broader collusion *or* Mueller did his job and Barr is hiding it from us.

    25/ What's bizarre is that when Barr says Mueller "did not find"—then says Mueller "did not establish"—the crime of Conspiracy, he *switches* to the language of Mueller's appointment ("coordinated") though "coordination" goes *far* beyond the issue of Conspiracy. Total confusion.

    26/ What this looks like to me as a lawyer—combining this evidence with Barr's prior false framing—is that Barr wants to imply Mueller found no collusive criminality *of any kind* when it's entirely possible (even likely) that Mueller only looked at a *narrow* form of Conspiracy.


    27/ It gets worse. You'll notice that MUELLER used the language "did not establish"—meaning *simply*, "did not have the evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt," which could still mean 80% proof of criminality—but BARR switched to "did not find" (suggesting 0% proof).

    28/ Barr is well aware—he certainly was when he wrote his wildly irresponsible advisory memos to Trump, which served as his audition for the job of Attorney General—that Team Trump has been equating "less-than-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt proof" with *no evidence*. So he helped out.


    29/ There's nothing academic about this: the GOP *jumped* on *Barr's* language—not *Mueller's*—for the premise that Mueller found *no* evidence of *any* collusion, rather than—as Mueller said—something less than beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence of a *narrow* type of Conspiracy.

    30/ Barr next confirms that he's only summarizing findings as to Conspiracy (the statute) with two entities—the IRA and GRU. Again—no one ever accused Trump of signing a secret agreement with either of these entities. Barr keeps sticking to his misleading "did not find" language.

    31/ Because we know the language Mueller used is "did not establish [beyond a reasonable doubt]," Barr's "weasel-words" (as we colloquially call them in the law) reveal something *damaging* to Trump: there may be *some* evidence of something we thought there was *no* evidence of.

    32/ The *reason* no Democrats accused Trump of signing a secret agreement with the IRA or GRU—and, we assumed, the reason Trump *only* specifically denied that sort of conduct—is, we thought, because there was *no* evidence of it. Mueller is allowing there *may* be some—or a lot.

    33/ So halfway through Barr's letter, his political motives have been revealed through *multiple* misleading framings/characterizations—but moreover, these framings and mischaracterizations inadvertently reveal that things could be *worse* for Trump on collusion than we thought.

    34/ Meanwhile, Barr's misleading framings/characterizations reveal that the type of collusion Trump was *actually accused of* either (a) was never looked at by Mueller, or (b) was looked at but *Barr has decided* they lie outside Mueller's purview, even though we know they don't.

    35/ The Daily Beast reported, shortly after Barr released his letter, that Mueller wanted *Congress*—not DOJ—to decide what his evidence meant, so the point I've just made is even more problematic: did Barr make a *political* judgment on *collusion* that Mueller actively opposed?

    36/ Meanwhile, we have a situation in which, just before Barr released his letter, Donald Trump and Donald Trump Jr. and Rudy Giuliani were *all* saying that America should see what I've called "Data-point #1"—the Mueller case file—in *full*. Now they're backtracking *hard*—why?

    37/ Barr then switches to the Obstruction question, revealing that Mueller made no judgment on the issue of whether a crime—and impeachable offense—had occurred, but wanted Congress to decide, instead. He also reveals something else that I think many people may miss—but it's key.

    38/ Barr reveals that most of Mueller's evidence on Obstruction was taken from the public sphere—which reveals that Mueller spent most of the 22 months his team of 40 people was working looking at collusion. It makes how Barr handled and discussed that issue even more suspicious.
    These are the facts presented in a way as to show WHY Barr’s report is so suspicious–it’s clear as day. One can’t dispute the facts (read: the truth), one can only dispute the interpretation of the facts, and that’s fair. But guess what, for the umpteenth time, neither YOU, nor I, alongside the vast majority of the public, FULLY and CONCLUSIVELY know what they are until we get Mueller’s Report, UNREDACTED and UNOBFUSCATED by Barr, including the case file and all of the corroborating evidence. The problem is that you don’t even acknowledge what has actually happened, what is TRUE, which is why subsequently you’ve been called all kinds of inbred, skull-fucked imbeciles.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,194
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    So what are you going to do if no such "Russia collusion" is found on the Mueller report, just as Mueller reported that there's no evidence of Russia collusion? Are you finally going to put it to rest, or do you say that it's the result of MORE conspiracies and "cover-ups", and the overall incompetency of Mueller?

    It looks like they're going to release the report in April. We will see.

  28. #28
    Alonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    TIM
    LIE-Ni 8w7 sx/so
    Posts
    171
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    This is not rocket science folks.
    It really isn't and yet, somehow, you still don't get it. Funny, that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    The Russian collusion conspiracy theory was a load of hogwash spawned by media spin doctors. If you believe in it fully then that means you are either completely brain washed, brain dead or both. The fact that mueller's investigation caught several high profile figures with corruption is besides the point. It is as redundant as saying: "I went fishing in the ocean today and caught some fish". Of course there is corruption involved among politics and business, that is some captain obvious stuff there.
    The inability and/or unwillingness of some of you to readily perceive context, nuance, and complexity is jarring. Even worse, is your inability and/or unwillingness to take in and digest broad swaths of information, and draw reasonable conjectures and conclusions. I'm trying to discern if it’s possibly type related and/or you are simply a product of the decrepit American public school system; it’s just that you are peddling in a sinfully reductive, oversimplification of the issue.

    1.) It has been PROVEN that Russia meddled in the 2016 Presidential election. In other news, Trump and various members of his campaign had long possessed suspect (and some criminal, by way of a felony conviction) dealings with Russian operatives linked to Putin and in one brazen act of recklessness, Trump even asked Russia to hack Clinton, essentially on his behalf. It would have been an egregious dereliction of duty (as far as US national security is concerned) to not seriously investigate the relationship between the aforementioned FACTS, if there was any to be found at all. And so, you are naive or ill informed, to believe that the notion of collusion was wrong from the beginning.

    2.) What was always going to be unlikely, as far as I (and most other rational people were concerned), is the idea that Trump was directly working for Putin, as some sort of Manchurian candidate. In real life, “collusion” is far broader in scope and objective and more nuanced and subtle in its methodology (a la quid pro quo financial entanglements), which is what most of the subsequent investigations into Trump are pursuing. What you evidently don't get is that "the fact that Mueller's investigation caught several high profile figures with corruption" is NOT beside the point, but is integral and intricately connected to the overarching point > their existing an interlocking system of mutually beneficial behaviors and actions prompted by compromised individuals that allowed a hostile foreign power to undermine American institutions. If you think covert and nuanced operations are not supposed to be covert (so as to go unnoticed and get away with their objective), then...you are the last person who should be calling someone else "braindead."

    3.) And then you casually say, "of course" there is a corruption, as if that should be normalized and OK. For one, it is that kind of cynicial thinking and willfull negligence about the integrity of our institutions that has allowed the worse decay EVER to take hold. Secondly, the utterly devastating, far reaching implications of a hostile foreign power being able to manipulate how we run our country (via those working in OUR government) should be a hair raising concern–a type of corruption that goes beyond the “petty” corruption of yesteryear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raver View Post
    They just don't get caught until you put a magnifying glass on it like the Weinstein scandal. I am glad I don't watch the news, I don't want to be pumped full of bull on the daily until my thoughts are merely just regurgitated from the media farce. Also who even cares at this point if Trump was involved with Russia because even if he was, whatever he did was a drop in the bucket compared to what that snake in a suit Hillary Clinton has done.
    For the sake of the country and your life, it's imperative that you learn how to properly weigh and assess information. Simply based off of what we KNOW, there's no way in hell Clinton's corruption dwarfs or even rivals Trump's--to even utter that means you haven't been paying attention. And I'm not arguing that she's some blameless, innocent noob (quite the contrary), but to NOT be able to adequately assess the various degrees to which corruption occurs, in that it is complex and multi-leveled and most assuredly operates on a gradient scale, is...startling, and says a lot about your "analysis" of the situation. There's a reason why the law (in principle) is not supposed to treat all criminals the same, because of the understanding that crimes carry different consequences and repercussions. Therefore, the person guilty of first-degree murder encompasses a fundamentally different situation to the person guilty of involuntary manslaughter. My point is that these nuances matter and carelessly mitigating them is dangerous.

    Moreover, it's interesting that on one hand, you say you don't watch the news (which is telling in that you said "watch," as if that's the only way to get information) and yet you allegedly know enough about what Trump has done, and how that pails in relation to Hillary Clinton’s corrupt doings. Where did you obtain that information? How would you know that? Either you have worked closely with her, in an environment that would have allowed you access to not only her direct actions but the inner workings of her mind, OR, you got the information from other secondary/third party sources. And, again, what would those sources be? How do you rate the veracity of these sources? At one point did you believe that you had enough information to make the above statement? Lol My point is that completely cutting yourself off from external “news” sources is the OPPOSITE way of getting to the bottom of something, barring direct first-hand experience which, even then, is still limited, as far as one's ability to get all the data is concerned. This is why TRUE seekers of knowledge are exhaustive in their efforts and scope when ascertaining the truth. Evidently, that's not you and, therefore, it’s hard to stake much in your opinions on the matter.
    Last edited by Alonzo; 03-30-2019 at 01:16 PM.

  29. #29
    COOL AND MANLY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    Your daul
    Posts
    970
    Mentioned
    22 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Troll thread. Full of bait and hate. Still amazes me how fast people lose their minds when they speak of politics. No wonder the world is full of pain. If you are so passionate about something that small things can wound you then you are probably not good at it. You think any of the politicians you see on TV stay all up night thinking about your problems? They know better than get invested in it emotionally. It is their career. That is how they earn their living. It's just another day for them.

    You can disagree with someone's politics but when they win, you let them run the place, not do everything in your power to trip them. The fact that Trump came in to repeal everything Obama did is what led to this mess in the first place.

    Unfortunately for democrats they are still willing to play the rules, which may delay any progress they seek to bring. This investigation means nothing because it's neutral, at least for now. If they wanted to bring Trump down by any mean they would have done it already. It seems they still believe in democracy. Or at least they think that times are changing, and whatever the republicans are doing won't stop the next generation from making their mark. I'm not so hopeful. They do have the millennials votes by far but how soon will they become a big enough force is the question. I can't wait for the next elections. This shit show is going to be so fun to watch.

    When Mitch McConnell and Co. blocked Obama in congress with their filibusters in a direct disregard for democracy and its process, and then refused to meet with Obama's Supreme Justice nominee it became obvious that Republicans are not going to play by the rules anymore, and Obama eventually resorted to using Executive Orders to do what he wanted, good or bad. The landscape of politics changed dramatically after that and Trump is a product of the period. He has no regard for international laws or treaties. He does what he wants and he willing to bend the law to do it. I don't think people understand what that means. You think you have a democracy now but you don't.

  30. #30
    Uncle Ave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    TIM
    LIE
    Posts
    1,419
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the Trump movement is a symptom of something deeply wrong in American society, namely anti-intellectualism and a desire to be moral without considering facts, which affects both the left and the right.


  31. #31
    The Only EII In This Part Of The Internet Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    Enlightened
    Posts
    16,284
    Mentioned
    297 Post(s)
    Tagged
    4 Thread(s)

    Default

    some of those that use forks are the same that eat croissants
    some of those that use forks are the same that eat croissants
    some of those that use forks are the same that eat croissants
    some of those that use forks are the same that eat croissants

    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    and now you do what they told ya
    but now you do what they told ya
    well now you do what they told ya

    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me
    fuck you, I won't do what you tell me

  32. #32

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,194
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well it just goes to show the poverty and the emptiness of "evidence-based X", like evidence-based journalism or something.

    But the whole point of journalism is to investigate, to be curious and to try to find the answers to certain unanswered questions, and not just to regurgitate "facts" or what everybody else is saying. Because what good is a fact, if that fact is false?

    It's the same with science, scientists are curious, and they want to find answers to certain questions, and they investigate by coming up with certain theories and hypotheses, which will lead to more problems and questions. And then they repeat the process.

    So is something right, just because it says so on CNN, or because the government or the CIA or the FBI say that it is? Well, not necessarily. So sometimes, these things have to be put into question, so that you will investigate further and get closer to the truth. It's not just about reporting "the facts".

    Unfortunately, that drive for curiosity is often silenced by the popularity of the "evidence-based X" approach. It's like as if the facts are presented, and there's no more to be said.

    Basically, this entire problem is created by the media's growing collusion and coziness with the establishment. The media is becoming more and more a mouthpiece of the establishment than something that actively questions the certain narratives that's surrounding it. It's like why would you just regurgitate the "facts" told by the establishment, like the CIA or the FBI or something, when the entire job of the media is to investigate such matters?

    So again, the "evidence-based X" approach is taken as a given, but are you just going to report whatever the FBI or the CIA says? Then you're just becoming an advertisement for the government.

    And if you say that well, they're now questioning Mueller, Barr, etc, then they're only doing that because their initial narrative has gotten so huge that the direction of it can no longer be changed easily.

  33. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Posts
    51
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Singu View Post
    Well it just goes to show the poverty and the emptiness of "evidence-based X", like evidence-based journalism or something.

    But the whole point of journalism is to investigate, to be curious and to try to find the answers to certain unanswered questions, and not just to regurgitate "facts" or what everybody else is saying. Because what good is a fact, if that fact is false?

    It's the same with science, scientists are curious, and they want to find answers to certain questions, and they investigate by coming up with certain theories and hypotheses, which will lead to more problems and questions. And then they repeat the process.

    So is something right, just because it says so on CNN, or because the government or the CIA or the FBI say that it is? Well, not necessarily. So sometimes, these things have to be put into question, so that you will investigate further and get closer to the truth. It's not just about reporting "the facts".

    Unfortunately, that drive for curiosity is often silenced by the popularity of the "evidence-based X" approach. It's like as if the facts are presented, and there's no more to be said.

    Basically, this entire problem is created by the media's growing collusion and coziness with the establishment. The media is becoming more and more a mouthpiece of the establishment than something that actively questions the certain narratives that's surrounding it. It's like why would you just regurgitate the "facts" told by the establishment, like the CIA or the FBI or something, when the entire job of the media is to investigate such matters?

    So again, the "evidence-based X" approach is taken as a given, but are you just going to report whatever the FBI or the CIA says? Then you're just becoming an advertisement for the government.

    And if you say that well, they're now questioning Mueller, Barr, etc, then they're only doing that because their initial narrative has gotten so huge that the direction of it can no longer be changed easily.
    Valid point. It's hard for me to think of such an approach as truly "evidence based", though. Because at the end of the day there was no evidence. What were presumed to be facts were tidbits that were then given a broader context, reframed and misinterpreted. People repeating limited bits of things in a giant echo chamber deprived of context... not fully understanding what they were talking about. It's like a social pact that forms - people agree that certain things are true. It is more like a "consensus" approach.

    If there is any lesson that can be learned from this incident... it is that there are consequences to sacrificing your truth and submitting to the corrupt consensus of the mob. So the critical moment to resist mob lies is the moment that you first encounter them, speak loudly and resist very firmly.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,194
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well you have one narrative, which is "Trump and Russia colluded". Its alternative narrative is, "It's unlikely that Trump and Russia colluded, or even if they did, it's a minor point".

    So the alternative brings us new questions, like "Why was the Russiagate created? For what purpose? Who created them?", etc, which are the kind of things that "investigative journalism" should be investigating.

  35. #35

  36. #36
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,220
    Mentioned
    218 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default


  37. #37
    كما في الأعلى كذلك في الأسفل Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,217
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Relevant legal analysis by a real attorney.


  38. #38
    Aramas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,208
    Mentioned
    78 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I've accepted that Russia most likely did rig the 2016 election. The following article from a website most likely controlled by the Russian government is a tacit admission:

    https://russia-insider.com/en/if-rus...d-term/ri18129

    ... Along with the reasoning for why.

    Archive link: http://archive.is/V1r1a

    Whether Trump was complicit, I have no idea.

    The United States has a long history of interfering with foreign elections, so it's rather plausible. Plus, I checked, there was actually a fucking movie about the USA winning the election for Yeltsin's second term. The article did not lie about that lol. "Spinning Boris" -- look it up.

    Russians hate Yeltsin apparently because he helped oligarchs loot the country. The USA secured his re-election with $10 billion from the IMF (which is of course basically the United States), along with some other goodies.

    Maybe @Sol would like to comment.
    Last edited by Aramas; 04-16-2019 at 08:05 AM.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,813
    Mentioned
    892 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aramas View Post
    Russians hate Yeltsin apparently because he helped oligarchs loot the country.
    "oligarchs" are just people having many money and this gives them power, including political influence direct and indirect.

    Russians hate capitalism - as materialistic individualistic idea and as practical result here. It's against our traditional culture. One of reasons why socialistic revolution was accepted by Russians in 1917-1922. And failed in Europe where were similar tries of socialistic revolutions, as there traditional collectivism and humanism were much reduced centuries earlier during capitalistic industrialisation.
    Yeltsin is one of those who is responsible for capitalistic overturn in 1985-1993 and the problems followed. "oligarchs" is natural part of capitalism anywhere, but they may rob other nations more and those live worse than own. it does not mean capitalism is good for nations which have better material side. capitalism worsens the possible material prosperity for anyone as it's based on supression of the majority so the minority could to keep the power and rob the majority further. also capitalism hits emotions and psyche of people by different ways, - partly it's part of the mentioned supression. capitalism is ineffective and harmful for humanity political regime. socialism in some form will be in the future anywhere, due to better efficiency of centralized rule and computers development allowing this practically. it's the only way to rise for humanity. also with stronger means for conflicts which technology gives, it needs higher control over anyone - it needs higher centralization. there is no capitalism on factories level, for example. no reasons for it to be on national and higher levels, except hardware limitations for planing and control

    > The USA secured his re-election with $10 billion

    Yeltsin have lost elections of 1996. After military overturn in 1993 there was no real elections. People have elected communists in 1996, but TV said the other and those damned politicians has agreed with that formally. Russia lives under pro-western capitalistic dictatorship since 1993. Minority alike 5% have good income here as a pay to support the situation, while 95% is in poverty, degradation and under genocide.

    Think more globally. The concrete people mean not much. Classes and political system levels - what you should to think about.

    Elections in USA have strong influence from different people. Including falsifications. It's not principally important did some of those people had passports of other countries. In case of USA - any president there is primarily established by local elites and mb some international capitals. Other is secondary factors.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  40. #40

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    3,194
    Mentioned
    224 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From a liberal Russian:

    "Even liberals and opponents of President Vladimir Putin have been deeply skeptical, pointing out that Russia’s ruling circles are barely competent enough to prop themselves up, let alone manipulate a superpower."

    Russians Always Knew There Was No Collusion https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/o...rt-russia.html

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •