cduggles
Bluelight Crew
Apparently the letter Mueller sent that expressed displeasure about Barr's summary of his report was very out of character for Mueller:
US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out
- Thread starter cduggles
- Start date
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Do you recognize how badly you undermine yourself with statements like this. First, to argue on a document you admit not reading? Really? That starts you out of the gate with a sign around your neck saying "I am speaking my opinions as facts without backing them up because I refuse to even review the facts provided upon the subject I am such an expert." Or, more simply "(puts bag over head) TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!" Secondly, it is the pinnacle of hypocrisy and laziness, neither of which brings support or confidence to your view, to say you wont even look at the document but you want others to do the legwork and find things for you. I may as well claim you fuck chickens and dare you to prove me wrong. Go ahead, bring the evidence. Completely unsubstantiated, and yet, I dont have to look at your history of non-chicken fucking to make you go to work proving me wrong.
FTR, you can keep in mind I am 100% with you on the HRC illegal activities. However, YOU are "completely ignoring context and nuance and unnecessarily simplifying the issue." The HRC 'investigation' (HA) proves that those in power determine what is fact and what is not, what is illegal and what is not worth pursuing. If anything, if you believe HRC did wrong, and got away with it, there is NOTHING you can do to stop that same argument being applied to Trump and the Mueller investigation now that Trump is in power. ANY argument made that Trump did wrong and is 'getting away with it' and using his political power to surpress things is as valid as any such argument against HRC. You can't have one true (or at least possible) and not the other.
I wanted to come back to this. Ali did a qed on it, but I can't just let it lie. To my previous point, do you understand how every bit of certainty you have that 'truth is on your side' and that others are having to "regurgitate lies, spin stories, shift the goalposts etc etc"....there are Dems who feel the exact same way, with the same certainty, on everything folks like yourself state? How to them, with absolute certainty and the power of truth, you and the other Trump supporters "just end up losing all credibility and looking completely silly"? Except, they don't feel you look silly, many of them are simply enraged that you can't see how wrong you are? An open mind at least can recognize this. It doesn't mean you are any more right or wrong, nor are they, but it's a matter of being able to acknowledge another interpretation is possible and exists, even if you believe it is wrong. Failure to accept that there are more than one way to interpret 'facts' means that you are failing to be 'open and honest'.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
FIFY.
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
What The Fallout From William Barr's Testimony Means For The Russia Investigation
(Full article at link-- it's NPR)
This isn't Barr's first rodeo, but I don't think he's operated in the spotlight of an environment that's as hyperpartisan as this one.
He didn't exactly acquit himself well.
(Full article at link-- it's NPR)
This isn't Barr's first rodeo, but I don't think he's operated in the spotlight of an environment that's as hyperpartisan as this one.
He didn't exactly acquit himself well.
^ indeed. lying to congress probably not a great idea...
alasdair
alasdair
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
It would be hysterical if Barr was indicted for perjury for lying in front of Congress. (Yes, I know it won't happen.)
Trump has to be sweating. I would actually watch Mueller testify. It would be great in front of the House Judiciary.
Trump has to be sweating. I would actually watch Mueller testify. It would be great in front of the House Judiciary.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
Good question and I'll explain it like I have previously. These accusations sprung up almost instantly after Trump had won. This set off alarm bells for me, and we all know that Trump wasn't "supposed" to win, according to the reigning establishment. So why didn't we hear about any of these serious accusations before the voting, to hurt his chances and stop him winning, if they knew he was engaging in criminal or treasonous activity? If Obama and co. knew already why did they not address or stop the alleged serious/significant interference, for the safety of the republic? Why did Obama and Clinton not long before that say that anyone who questions US electoral integrity is a danger to democracy and that there's no way that anyone could rig America's elections? And then as soon as Trump won, they turned around and claimed the opposite? (Obama said there are "no instances of this happening now" as he also claimed to have detailed knowledge of Russia/Trump collusion/interference - in hindsight why didn't he say something then?) I also had done a ton of research into Uraniuam One and the affairs of the Clintons/Obama in general and I had saw how they had "colluded" with Russians and Russian governments in the past, so this entire accusation of the Russian government somehow altering the results of the election for Trump (which was one of the original accusations before the goalposts shifted a dozen times) instantly seemed patently ridiculous to me. I could see it for what it was, an attempted coup to remove Trump and attempt to frame his win as illegitimate. If you do the right research and ask the right questions you can work stuff out.
I disagree with you here. Y'all been making the claims that Trump is a Russian puppet and committing crimes. I said that I didn't buy it 2 years ago and I waited for evidence. Nothing came. I watched for 2 years how some of these politicians just straight lied and lied and twisted facts, speculated. I could see through it all. I watched Comey perjure himself multiple times, saw him admit to leaking confidential information and then there were zero repercussions. This isn't about fairness and breaking the law, it's about power, who's got it and what can they do with it. So when Barr says that Mueller's conclusion is that there will no further indictments - I'm like.. thanks for wasting my time for 2 years. Look, I will most likely read the report eventually coz I'm sure it has some interesting stuff in there. But to trust it? Trust Mueller? The guy who failed to stop (or was complicit in) uranium leaving the country to go to Russia? If there are no further indictments = insufficient evidence of crimes = what's in the report is either speculative or unproven = they're attacking him for very minor things in the world of big league politics (which looks like a coup). And as I mentioned, if there's anything super damning in the report, please summarize it and I will go investigate. But so far, any exerpts from the report have been very underwhelming. I'm more interested in the origins of the investigation, but not many other people are because it further absolves Trumps and implicates his attackers.
That implies that Trump and Clinton are working together. Why would you imply that there's equality in corruption? So let's say the Obama/Clinton admminstration over the years would have filled positions with people loyal to them, now that Trump is president he's going to be treated the same way? And the major difference here that you're forgetting, is that there's a ton of observable evidence that HRC has committed crimes and there's no direct evidence on Trump. To me it's quite obvious that major parts of the establishment protected HRC and are using their same powers to attack Trump. If Trump abused his powers the same way that his opponents have? The FISA warrant that launched the Mueller investigation would be declassified, Clinton would be on trial etc.
When I say I have "truth on my side", I do not mean that I'm always right or correct. It means I'm often wrong but me being wrong will lead to the truth. I probably worded it badly but a win for me is not just being proven correct about something after 2 years, a win is also if I'm proven wrong.
Doesn't really matter how they feel. I've felt the same feeling and been wrong before. I just ask questions and listen to what they say. Doesn't take me to long to assess how much information they have and whether they are being genuine or just pushing an agenda/being led.
I'm actually kinda annoyed at constnatly being labeled as a "Trump supporter". I'm literally much more of a Gabbard supporter - so by the logic of adjacency am a I liberal democrat?. Well no - because I don't hate Trump and just defend him over what I perceive is lies and smears, that makes me a Trump supporter and a rightwing republican. But what if I'm not defending Trump I'm just defending the truth? My support for Trump has waned a lot recently. I don't like what's happening in Venezuela or in the Middle East + Julian Assange if this continues I won't support Trump anymore. Just the truth
I completely get this, and I understand people and have sympathy/empathy for them. I understand that some people subjectively believe all that they do even if it may be wrong. Those people shouldn't engage in political debate if they don't want their realities destroyed (or at least shaped/altered). You can't change reality. You can try to change every person in order to accept your own reality, but it isn't easy.
tl;dr:
tlb: "maybe you should think about your stubborn i'm-right-you're-all-wrong approach to the forum?"
jgrimez: "no. i'm right you're all wrong"
q.e.d.
alasdair
tlb: "maybe you should think about your stubborn i'm-right-you're-all-wrong approach to the forum?"
jgrimez: "no. i'm right you're all wrong"
q.e.d.
alasdair
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Honestly JGrimez. Since your comment that you're not even going to read the mueller report. I've lost a lot of patience and respect for your position.
Someone who wants the truth has doubts, they want to see what the claims of the other side are, not to debunk them but to see if there's a chance they're right.
You say things like that you believe people should look at the information and make up their own mind, but hypocritically you don't do that yourself. You seem to sooner implicitly trust some loudmouth on YouTube and give their evidence more benefit of the doubt than a government report that took 2 years to create.
It's bullshit. I don't think you're a truth seeker. I think you've long decided your position on all these subjects, because it all fits into your worldview and need for the world to make sense according to your values and beliefs.
It's not about finding the truth, I think you believe you already have the truth and that it's as absolute for you as a religion. It's about proving the truth for you, not finding it.
Someone who wants the truth has doubts, they want to see what the claims of the other side are, not to debunk them but to see if there's a chance they're right.
You say things like that you believe people should look at the information and make up their own mind, but hypocritically you don't do that yourself. You seem to sooner implicitly trust some loudmouth on YouTube and give their evidence more benefit of the doubt than a government report that took 2 years to create.
It's bullshit. I don't think you're a truth seeker. I think you've long decided your position on all these subjects, because it all fits into your worldview and need for the world to make sense according to your values and beliefs.
It's not about finding the truth, I think you believe you already have the truth and that it's as absolute for you as a religion. It's about proving the truth for you, not finding it.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
You're now personally attacking me because you know I'm right and you have no argument. If there is a specific part of the Mueller report that you think shows evidence of impropriety then I'd like you to bring it up and I'm willing to discuss it. But the way that you reply to me says a lot more about you than it does me.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I shouldn't have to find evidence for you. If you were interested in the truth, then you should be looking for evidence that trumps corrupt.
Anyone interested in knowing the truth should want to look for evidence that disproves their beliefs.
But like I said, I'm losing patience for this. Ultimately it's your loss if you don't read stuff that could contradict your opinions. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe blind certainty is an easier way to live, even if it's certainty of something fairly negative. Than living and never being able to be 100% certain at all.
Anyone interested in knowing the truth should want to look for evidence that disproves their beliefs.
But like I said, I'm losing patience for this. Ultimately it's your loss if you don't read stuff that could contradict your opinions. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe blind certainty is an easier way to live, even if it's certainty of something fairly negative. Than living and never being able to be 100% certain at all.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
"Trump's corrupt", that's cool show me the evidence, not just insinuations.
And what do you want to do about it? Is any of the corruption provable, impeachment-worthy or indictment-worthy? If it isn't, then he either isn't as corrupt as you say, or more evidence needs to be amassed.
And what do you want to do about it? Is any of the corruption provable, impeachment-worthy or indictment-worthy? If it isn't, then he either isn't as corrupt as you say, or more evidence needs to be amassed.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Impeachment is a political process, it matters very little how truthful the evidence is or isn't. You either have the numbers or you don't.
And no. I'm not gonna show you evidence of any kind. For the same reason I gave earlier in the thread. It's pointless. Some people can't be convinced they're wrong no matter what evidence you have. And I am convinced you're one of them.
You brush off any evidence you see out of hand. All evidence is either fabricated, not as bad as it sounds, etc, etc. Why would anyone waste time finding evidence they know you'll dismiss?
What frustrates me is that you either can't see it, or won't admit it. That NO evidence can convince you. Trump could be recorded personally colluding with Putin and you'd call it a deep state fabrication and imagine compression artifacts as proof of CGI. God could come down from the heavens and tell you, and you'd tell God "you're not God, you're a hallucination created by the deepstate with technology".
NO evidence would be sufficient. None. So tell me, why should anyone spend even a second more than they feel like finding evidence for you to dismiss?
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
I think your outbursts aginst me are unwarranted.
So what are you saying that Barr is lying and covering for Trump?
Also Rosenstein? <is he a problem?
Are you accepting the DOJ's summary of the Special Counsel report, or are you now spouting a conspiracy theory?
It's amusing to see the story constantly shifting, while mine has remained consistent.
Maybe I was right? That might be possible.
I don't gloat if people accept the truth. I'll then show them respect.
So what are you saying that Barr is lying and covering for Trump?
Also Rosenstein? <is he a problem?
Are you accepting the DOJ's summary of the Special Counsel report, or are you now spouting a conspiracy theory?
It's amusing to see the story constantly shifting, while mine has remained consistent.
Maybe I was right? That might be possible.
I don't gloat if people accept the truth. I'll then show them respect.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
I'm saying what I said. No more, no less.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Good to know. This probably isn't the right thread on it, but I'd be interested in knowing why you support Gabbard. As for the 'Trump supporter' label, it comes when you defend him so ferociously. Blindly in fact, if you aren't willing to look at the facts presented and build an assessment from that as opposed to your predetermined views. As much as the left blindly attacks Trump despite a lack of supporting facts or proof, Trump supporters have an equal reputation for ignoring reality and not taking a moment to consider and wonder about the underlying reality.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
She's not attacking you. She is pointing out how close minded you are, which is an evident fact you re-enforce when you won't consider the information already provided, when you won't even read for yourself the report that 'exonerates' Trump. Its not that you are right or wrong it is that you make no argument, or even an honest attempt to address these facts (note: if you read them, considered them, you may find you can actually use them to support your arguments, just sayin'). Your mind was set 2y ago, when you so correctly predicted this is where we would be. Your mind hasn't, and can't be changed - strengthened in it's view, or open to a different view - the way you are approaching this.
Agree and disagree. Common practice in here is if you are trying to make a point, you bring the facts to support it - as such you should find the evidence. However, that also assumes the other person will hear you out, consider what you've presented (including supporting facts); which JG has shown he will not do. As such, there is no need to find evidence he won't hear.
Very much disagree. Do Christians go out seeking things that will undermine their faith and disproves their beliefs? Does any religion? No. IMO, politics in America has reached a point of religion where the non-believers are the hands and voices of Satan to be disbelieved and shamed at every turn. Right and wrong are relative to your beliefs, and you don't challenge them lest ye be cast out.
Science, yes, they have hypotheses, but they set about trying to prove it true. If the experiments prove otherwise, they should be honest enough in accepting that and adjusting their hypothesis. But then, they are based on facts and reality, not beliefs.
Politics, we wistfully pretend, will still fall back on facts and reality, that there is an unbiased truth to be found and it will determine right and wrong. Unfortunately, by the increasing aggressiveness of politicians and complicity of MSM, there is no unbiased truth to be had. Only one religion's view of others, of what is right, of what America needs to move towards what a better America should be.
As a start, be open to hearing it out and looking at information provided. As a start.
This has been proven, repeatedly, so it begs the questions of 1) Why try when he won't listen? and 2) Why get upset when he shows he won't listen? It's expected.
They are warranted in the sense that you pretend to debate, but there is no debate when you are repeating the same points over and over rather than putting them forth and letting them sit until someone is brave enough to take them on. There is no debate when others put points to you which you ignore. There is no debate, but there is the repetition and lack of listening. This easily elevates to annoyance and can be infuriating. All of that is to explain the reaction, but I will agree the response isn't needed. It doesn't help to get angry, to flail at someone who does their own version of participation in which they don't participate beyond the same rote responses and closed mind. Perhaps better is to simply acknowledge the other person's inability to properly interact, and choose not to interact with that person? I'm writing this less as directed at JG, and more at all CEPS participants.
If there is someone who you cannot engage with for a reasonable discussion, why would you choose to do so? I can speculate about trolls and troll-poking for entertainment on both parts. But if you seek true discussion with open minds for learning from one another. Is it wise to choose a participant to engage with that you can't have productive dialogue with?
As a reminder, there is an IGNORE function if you can't keep yourself from engaging in non-productive discussions with individuals. Otherwise, YOU are making the conscious choice to engage them, and YOU own the outcome of your choice.
That's easy when your mind was set 2y ago.
I'm not saying you aren't right. But I'm thinking you would have been a real joy back when the universe revolved around the earth, and it was flat.