shoo-in wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Nope. Go look it up (not Urban Dictionary). "Shoo-in" is correct.
You are incapable of understanding what I said. The "dictionary" is incorrect. The original meaning has been entirely changing by misuse of the original term. So, stop being an idiot.
I see. The original term was a guaranteed win by fraudulent means. How did that term come to mean guaranteed win by legal means? Something isn't right.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
There was NO criminal collusion and no criminal obstruction. To suggest otherwise would make you an idiot.
FFS.
Sally, sally, sally.
This is why trump wins.
Is your thesis that Mueller, a DOJ employee, should have ignored DOJ guidelines and indicted a sitting president? Because that seems to be what you are saying.
Mueller went with the guidelines, did not indict, but very clearly laid out the circa 10 times Trump was guilty of obstructing justice. So congress or prosecutors can take action now, or after he leaves office.
There is no way in this world that you can say there was not criminal obstruction, and cite the Mueller report as your evidence.
and that's what napolitano, a right winger, is doing. He is reading the mueller report and understanding that trump is guilty of obstruciton of justice.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
There was NO criminal collusion and no criminal obstruction. To suggest otherwise would make you an idiot.
FFS.
Sally, sally, sally.
This is why trump wins.
Is your thesis that Mueller, a DOJ employee, should have ignored DOJ guidelines and indicted a sitting president? Because that seems to be what you are saying.
Mueller went with the guidelines, did not indict, but very clearly laid out the circa 10 times Trump was guilty of obstructing justice. So congress or prosecutors can take action now, or after he leaves office.
There is no way in this world that you can say there was not criminal obstruction, and cite the Mueller report as your evidence.
Mueller didn't have to indict Trump. What I kept hearing for 2 years was the shenanigans of Trump Jr., Kushner and others in the Trump family and none of those were indicted.
Sally Vix wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
You should not comment again until you read the Mueller Report. I know how ignorant you are because I read it. Most here don't know the depth of your ignorance...but at least half of them suspect.
I am sure you read all 488 pages. You pretended to read it and instead rely on your information from the far-left mainstream media. There was NO criminal collusion and no criminal obstruction. To suggest otherwise would make you an idiot.
I did read it all, including the footnotes. Of course about 9% of it was redacted, so I couldn't read that. I cleared my calendar for half a day and took about 11 hours with some breaks to read it in its entirety.
You really have no authority to comment on it unless you read it. You shouldn't even rely on my comments on it even though they are correct.
You are correct that it was determined there was no criminal collusion (conspiracy). You are not correct about obstruction. Mueller simply punted to Congress and set it up for another prosecutor to indict at a later time if he/she sees fit. Those two points though are Cliff's Notes. You really can only get a left-wing or right-wing view unless you go read it. Even Judge Andrew Napolitano says with clarity that several things Trump did were Obstruction of Justice. He's right.
What the facts are is that I read the entire report and you did not read it at all.
Your opinion on something you haven't read isn't worth anything.
By Michael Gerson President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter, 2001-06. Politcal Party: Republican
My personal recommendation: Relentlessly turning the president’s claim of authenticity against him, until his defining public attributes become national jokes. Every part of Trump’s appeal is fraudulent. His lies are not the filigree; they are the foundation.
The man who promised to drain the swamp imported alligators such as Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen.
The man who claimed he would bring business skills to the White House has cultivated a cloud of squabbling chaos around him. His management style — rewarding toadies and punishing honest disagreement — would push the average lemonade stand into early bankruptcy.
And, most disturbingly, the president’s defiant nationalism is strangely lacking in basic patriotism. He is quick to question others’ loyalty — ‘Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country’ — but remarkably slow to demonstrate loyalty of his own.
Trump supporters must believe that deep down he is a true patriot. But the public evidence for this is scarce. It was certainly not evident during his nonexistent military career. It could not be proved by his casual slanders against the country.
Sally Vix wrote:
agip wrote:
FFS.
Sally, sally, sally.
This is why trump wins.
Is your thesis that Mueller, a DOJ employee, should have ignored DOJ guidelines and indicted a sitting president? Because that seems to be what you are saying.
Mueller went with the guidelines, did not indict, but very clearly laid out the circa 10 times Trump was guilty of obstructing justice. So congress or prosecutors can take action now, or after he leaves office.
There is no way in this world that you can say there was not criminal obstruction, and cite the Mueller report as your evidence.
Mueller didn't have to indict Trump. What I kept hearing for 2 years was the shenanigans of Trump Jr., Kushner and others in the Trump family and none of those were indicted.
[sigh]
Conspiracy was not shown by Mueller. Kushner and Trump Jr. were primarily in the cross hairs there. With regard to the Mueller Report, Trump's jeopardy now lies with Obstruction of Justice. It is still possible that Jr. and even Kushner might get wrapped up in Obstruction of Justice, but Trump himself is definitely still in jeopardy.
Don't forget too that there are still 14 Mueller-spawned investigations out there, some of which will harm Trump AND Jr. There then are at least three other investigations into Trump that were not borne of the Mueller investigation.
Finally, the "shenanigans" still occurred. What YOU and other Trumpers are doing is accepting of any behavior of his that hasn't been deemed illegal. Sad that that's the bar.
shoo-in wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Nope. Go look it up (not Urban Dictionary). "Shoo-in" is correct.
You are incapable of understanding what I said. The "dictionary" is incorrect. The original meaning has been entirely changing by misuse of the original term. So, stop being an idiot.
I understood what you said. I reject what you said.
Bush speech writer says ... wrote:
By Michael Gerson
President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter, 2001-06.
Politcal Party: Republican
A former resident of swamp and a defender of the Deep State.
He does not speak for the forgotten men and women of America.
shoe-in wrote:
Big Shoes wrote:
shoo-in
Incorrect. A long misused term that was "redefined" in a weak attempt to cover-up the misuse.
shoo-in
Make America Great Again wrote:
Bush speech writer says ... wrote:
By Michael Gerson
President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter, 2001-06.
Politcal Party: Republican
A former resident of swamp and a defender of the Deep State.
He does not speak for the forgotten men and women of America.
I LOVE that phrase; "the forgotten men and women of America." It is unbearably CUTE!
Thanks for the laughs!
Sally Vix wrote:
Just a quick recap of where we stand now ...
1) The Mueller investigation was established to look in to Russian collusion in the 2016 election. No criminal collusion was found. No indictment for Trump Sr., Trump Jr., Kushner, Ivanka, Melania or anyone else in the Trump household.
2) Since the Mueller investigation found nothing, Dems have had to resort to obstruction of justice allegations. Pelosi and other Dem leaders in the House know they don't want to go down this path of impeachment. It is political suicide. Plus, the Senate would never vote to convict the president.
3) Liberals here claim that the Mueller investigation handed off pieces of the inquiry to the Southern District of New York. Preet Baharara hired most of the attorneys in the SDNY and has said they would never indict a sitting president. AG William Barr would never allow Trump to be indicted on phony charges of obstruction. So, Trump will serve out his first term.
4) The current slate of President contenders on the Dem side is a freight train heading to a nightmarish ending. Bernie being heckled the other night by black supporters looked very bad for him. Joe Biden's announcement was greeted with widespread lackluster support by progressives in the party. The party is about to split between those radicals wanting to impeach Trump and the more moderate who realize the foolishness of such a path. AOC, Harris, Sanders, and Warren are left-wing radicals that Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin and other red states would never support. The Democratic party is in a huge quandary. Uncle Joe has too many skeletons in his closet and is not far enough left. Bernie is a nut job (voting rights for the Boston marathon bomber) and he too would never get enough votes from moderates. Just not a pretty sight with the part.
5) As the Mueller investigation fades Trump's popularity will rise as more and more people realize it was a witch hunt. He is serving out his first term and I would think he would be favored for re-election unless something dramatic happens. God bless you All!
Here's a real recap for you since you clearly have made no attempt to read the report itself or reviews of what was in the report.
The Mueller report did not exonerate Trump over the obstruction question. From the outset, Mueller said he was bound by the Justice Department’s opinion: He couldn’t indict Trump. He also felt he couldn’t recommend criminal charges even in a secret Justice Department memo or in a charging document filed under seal until after Trump left office.
Mueller also found that while there was no underlying crime of collusion with the Russian government, Trump still took steps that ‘‘were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations.’
Mueller wouldn't have mentioned "until after Trump left office" unless he felt there were potential crimes he could be charged with and that he currently was following DOJ guidelines in not charging him currently.
Flagpole wrote:
Shoe-in wrote:
Are YOU Alan?
Shoo-in, as Sally showed, is a misappropriated term. The original meaning has been redefined to mean something else. It went from meaning something illegal, to meaning something entirely different.
So, stop being ignorant, and stop using a "recently redefined" term as correct English. It is nothing of the sort.
Nope. Go look it up (not Urban Dictionary). "Shoo-in" is correct.
"Shoe-in" is an acceptable usage. In some terms it is the correct usage.
Flagpole wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I am sure you read all 488 pages. You pretended to read it and instead rely on your information from the far-left mainstream media. There was NO criminal collusion and no criminal obstruction. To suggest otherwise would make you an idiot.
I did read it all, including the footnotes. Of course about 9% of it was redacted, so I couldn't read that. I cleared my calendar for half a day and took about 11 hours with some breaks to read it in its entirety.
You really have no authority to comment on it unless you read it. You shouldn't even rely on my comments on it even though they are correct.
You are correct that it was determined there was no criminal collusion (conspiracy). You are not correct about obstruction. Mueller simply punted to Congress and set it up for another prosecutor to indict at a later time if he/she sees fit. Those two points though are Cliff's Notes. You really can only get a left-wing or right-wing view unless you go read it. Even Judge Andrew Napolitano says with clarity that several things Trump did were Obstruction of Justice. He's right.
What the facts are is that I read the entire report and you did not read it at all.
Your opinion on something you haven't read isn't worth anything.
You may have read it, but clearly, you did not comprehend it.
The Mueller Report didn’t even speak to the issue of trump’s racism, which is what’s leading trump to commit these crimes, with more coming everyday.
The “good people” who murder a protester in C’ville. The NRA who are happy to work with the Russians in the Butina affair. The illegal “emergency” against Mexicans. The efforts to repress black voters, who certainly aren’t fooled by trump. The attempts to silence Rep. Omar. This is what happens when racism becomes a defining characteristic.
There is a Difference wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
I did read it all, including the footnotes. Of course about 9% of it was redacted, so I couldn't read that. I cleared my calendar for half a day and took about 11 hours with some breaks to read it in its entirety.
You really have no authority to comment on it unless you read it. You shouldn't even rely on my comments on it even though they are correct.
You are correct that it was determined there was no criminal collusion (conspiracy). You are not correct about obstruction. Mueller simply punted to Congress and set it up for another prosecutor to indict at a later time if he/she sees fit. Those two points though are Cliff's Notes. You really can only get a left-wing or right-wing view unless you go read it. Even Judge Andrew Napolitano says with clarity that several things Trump did were Obstruction of Justice. He's right.
What the facts are is that I read the entire report and you did not read it at all.
Your opinion on something you haven't read isn't worth anything.
You may have read it, but clearly, you did not comprehend it.
You do have a point. That part of the Mueller Report is simply a collection of evidence on obstruction. The prosecution and the defense would then use that evidence to defend their case since no judgment on obstruction was made.
Alan
Flagpole wrote:
agip wrote:
The perfect Republican moment. A Christian leader condemns a faithful married man because he is gay but embraces a fornicating, unfaithful, lying, cheating, stealing, coveting man because he is a Republican.
Amurica.
Yep. Asinine. Franklin Graham is lucky there isn't a hell, because he would be going there.
Franklin has probably heard this all his life, but I wish he was more like his father.
Billy Graham always made himself available to council the president during difficult times. But as close as he was to leaders all over the world, he worked hard to stay out of politics. Billy Graham had a higher purpose. He was a true minister.
Flagpole wrote:
You really have no authority to comment on it unless you read it. You shouldn't even rely on my comments on it even though they are correct.
There are at least 3 fallacies committed here : a likely argument from authority, an ad hominem ( see specifically Courtier's Reply), and an appeal to accomplishment (a rather common genetic fallacy). The three are closely related.
I'd also say you're guilty of poisoning the well here.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
There is nothing that's even unusual about abolishing the electoral college. That one has been bandied about since the beginning of the constitution. Andrew Jackson even railed against the electoral college in his first address to congress in 1825. This (very good and obvious) idea has always been part of our politics.
Abolishing the EC is ridiculous idea and will lead to presidential candidates ignoring most states and focusing on NY and CA only. Thankfully, we have a Constitutional Republic to prevent that.
You libs only hate it because Cankles and Algore lost.
Right now they only focus on the purple states.
If you get rid of the EC, then presidential candidates would need to appeal to all voters everywhere.
A Republican in California has no voice in picking the president. His vote doesn't count. That is wrong. Everyone's vote should count the same.
Fat hurts wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
Abolishing the EC is ridiculous idea and will lead to presidential candidates ignoring most states and focusing on NY and CA only. Thankfully, we have a Constitutional Republic to prevent that.
You libs only hate it because Cankles and Algore lost.
Right now they only focus on the purple states.
If you get rid of the EC, then presidential candidates would need to appeal to all voters everywhere.
A Republican in California has no voice in picking the president. His vote doesn't count. That is wrong. Everyone's vote should count the same.
There are dozens of arguments in favor of the electoral college and you don't attempt to preempt your opponents by countering even a single one of them in advance?
And they say liberal arts degrees are a waste of time....
Racket wrote:
Fat hurts wrote:
Right now they only focus on the purple states.
If you get rid of the EC, then presidential candidates would need to appeal to all voters everywhere.
A Republican in California has no voice in picking the president. His vote doesn't count. That is wrong. Everyone's vote should count the same.
There are dozens of arguments in favor of the electoral college and you don't attempt to preempt your opponents by countering even a single one of them in advance?
And they say liberal arts degrees are a waste of time....
Rigged was trying to say that the idea of abolishing the EC was some new, crazy, radical idea. I shut him down on that one.
I wasn't attempting to write a legal brief on the subject. I think the "everyone's vote should count the same" argument is so strong that you really shouldn't need much else. But I get your point.
I have a science degree, but I think liberal arts degrees are very valuable as well. Good on you if that's where you are coming from.
I'd love to go back and get a degree in philosophy or theology. I'd also like to study electrochemistry. It's all good.