Sally Vix wrote:
Po-tay-to po-tah-to wrote:
"tongue-in-cheek" = "really kidding" = trolling for a reaction
More like a flippant comment.
ok. I retract my flaming. Tone is hard to detect in print.
Onward.
Sally Vix wrote:
Po-tay-to po-tah-to wrote:
"tongue-in-cheek" = "really kidding" = trolling for a reaction
More like a flippant comment.
ok. I retract my flaming. Tone is hard to detect in print.
Onward.
Sally Vix wrote:
Would you accept no criminal conspiracy was found?
I think that's a fair summary, though some might quibble and replace "found" with "reported."
As others have observed, one really can't have it both ways: If Trump is truly a clueless incompetent, to suggest that he could have orchestrated and hidden a conspiracy with Russia strains credulity.
Sure... wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Would you accept no criminal conspiracy was found?
I think that's a fair summary, though some might quibble and replace "found" with "reported."
As others have observed, one really can't have it both ways: If Trump is truly a clueless incompetent, to suggest that he could have orchestrated and hidden a conspiracy with Russia strains credulity.
It's not always complicated...I mean it basically happened. Trump wanted to build a tower in Moscow. The kremlin wanted movement on sanctions. All this was known on both sides. Wasn't manafort basically asked to work on the sanctions piece?
The way trump thinks...the very, very first thing he would think is 'ok, Moscow likes me and is treating me well by helping my campaign. This is great. I'll change the wording in the GOP platform to something they'll like...maybe I'll get my moscow tower.'
Conspiracy doesn't have to be complicated, or even worked out between the parties.
Sally Vix wrote:
Po-tay-to po-tah-to wrote:
"tongue-in-cheek" = "really kidding" = trolling for a reaction
More like a flippant comment.
flippant - not showing a serious or respectful attitude
Doesn't a self-admitted "flippant" response to an accusation of not engaging in good faith supports the accusation?
Sally Vix wrote:
reeder wrote:
Sally and Rigged take after the Orange One . . . they do not read anything longer than a tweet.
Actually, I read the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Executioner's Song (which is more than 1000 pages) in one day. So, since Flagpole insists he read the 488-page Mueller report he may have read that in 8 hours. Although I doubt he is a speed reader as I am.
That must have been the large print version. Because the book in only 220,000 words. A fast reader can do 20k words in an hour--finish in a day. A speed reader could do it in maybe 9 hours. Any faster than that then you were speed reading and word skipping/glossing.
Sally Vix wrote:
L L wrote:
That's another false or misleading claim.
It said conspiracy was not found.
It did not say no conspiracy.
They may have easily conspired and covered it up. And Trump obstructed everywhere he could to prevent any possible evidence from being found.
Would you accept no criminal conspiracy was found?
Idiot. There is no such thing as "criminal conspiracy". That is Faux News nothing-burger word. Criminal collusion is what is covered by the law.
no such thing wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Would you accept no criminal conspiracy was found?
Idiot. There is no such thing as "criminal conspiracy". That is Faux News nothing-burger word. Criminal collusion is what is covered by the law.
Correct.
From the Report.
-- Mueller made clear that prosecutors did not consider "collusion" a legal term and never performed an analysis of that issue.
-- In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law.
-- As an initial matter, this Office evaluated potentially criminal conduct that involved the collective action of multiple individuals not under the rubric of “collusion,” but through the lens of conspiracy law.
-- But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the U.S. Code; nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. To the contrary, even as defined in legal dictionaries, collusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371.
-- Conspiracy to defraud the United States: A legal charge used against people thought to have worked together to commit fraud against the US government in some way, such as by impeding the functions of the Federal Election Commission or another government agency. The special counsel’s office made use of this charge against former Trump campaign officials Paul Manafort and Rick Gates, and against the Russian organization that engineered a social media campaign to influence the 2016 election. This is the technical charge that pundits likely mean when they colloquially refer to “collusion,” which envisions a conspiracy between Russians and Americans to defraud the US election system.
Next you're going to say he can't be charged with golden showers.
And he can then say "The Mueller Report showed there were no golden showers! But if there were, they would be the best golden showers in history ever! So golden! So showery!"
Sally Vix wrote:
reeder wrote:
Sally and Rigged take after the Orange One . . . they do not read anything longer than a tweet.
Actually, I read the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Executioner's Song (which is more than 1000 pages) in one day. So, since Flagpole insists he read the 488-page Mueller report he may have read that in 8 hours. Although I doubt he is a speed reader as I am.
Flagpole doesn't come off as much of a reader. Now if you said he watched 8 hours of cable news (or SpongeBob), I'd believe you.
Eve Wood wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Actually, I read the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Executioner's Song (which is more than 1000 pages) in one day. So, since Flagpole insists he read the 488-page Mueller report he may have read that in 8 hours. Although I doubt he is a speed reader as I am.
Flagpole doesn't come off as much of a reader. Now if you said he watched 8 hours of cable news (or SpongeBob), I'd believe you.
Sally is not a reader. The Executioner's Song is not as long as she/he claims. 220-thousand words was given. I have a ebook version of the Mueller Report and its word count it 147-thousand words. Sally claims 220-thousand words is over 1000 paves. Meanwhile 147-thousand words comes in at 448 pages. If you believed what Sally claims, regarding pages, The Executioner's Song would be nearly 400-thousand words--which is just another one of his/her lies.
220k wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Actually, I read the Pulitzer Prize-winning The Executioner's Song (which is more than 1000 pages) in one day. So, since Flagpole insists he read the 488-page Mueller report he may have read that in 8 hours. Although I doubt he is a speed reader as I am.
That must have been the large print version. Because the book in only 220,000 words. A fast reader can do 20k words in an hour--finish in a day. A speed reader could do it in maybe 9 hours. Any faster than that then you were speed reading and word skipping/glossing.
Only 220,000 words for 1000 pages? Infinite Jest has more than double that for about the same number of pages.
Ha ha, and you’re supposed to speed-read with GREATER comprehension. Sally & the trumpers have somehow comprehended the report as saying that trump is a nice guy who never does anything wrong!
no such thing wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Would you accept no criminal conspiracy was found?
Idiot. There is no such thing as "criminal conspiracy". That is Faux News nothing-burger word. Criminal collusion is what is covered by the law.
Nice insult. If you had bothered to read the Mueller report, and I previously admitted I had not, and apparently only Flagpole read every word of the Mueller report, but relying on the "pundits" they generally discussed how Mueller doesn't really mention "collusion" in his report but instead continually calls it conspiracy."
Much appreciated. I guess the person who called me an idiot might want to think twice before insulting next time.
You were incorrect.
4 Sally wrote:
Eve Wood wrote:
Flagpole doesn't come off as much of a reader. Now if you said he watched 8 hours of cable news (or SpongeBob), I'd believe you.
Sally is not a reader. The Executioner's Song is not as long as she/he claims. 220-thousand words was given. I have a ebook version of the Mueller Report and its word count it 147-thousand words. Sally claims 220-thousand words is over 1000 paves. Meanwhile 147-thousand words comes in at 448 pages. If you believed what Sally claims, regarding pages, The Executioner's Song would be nearly 400-thousand words--which is just another one of his/her lies.
My memory might be going but I distinctly recall having the paperback version and it was maybe 1050 pages or thereabouts.
4 Sally wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Much appreciated. I guess the person who called me an idiot might want to think twice before insulting next time.
You were incorrect.
How was I incorrect? I said Mueller was considering criminal conspiracy - not criminal collusion.
Unlike the traitors & racists, we read on media that annotated the report with page-number references, etc. You were trolled by media that also are too stupid to read it.
Sally Vix wrote:
4 Sally wrote:
Sally is not a reader. The Executioner's Song is not as long as she/he claims. 220-thousand words was given. I have a ebook version of the Mueller Report and its word count it 147-thousand words. Sally claims 220-thousand words is over 1000 paves. Meanwhile 147-thousand words comes in at 448 pages. If you believed what Sally claims, regarding pages, The Executioner's Song would be nearly 400-thousand words--which is just another one of his/her lies.
My memory might be going but I distinctly recall having the paperback version and it was maybe 1050 pages or thereabouts.
I have an ebook of The Executioner's Song and the book reader says there are 217,000 words. Goodreads states the book has 1056 pages. But, I also have another 1000+ page book to compare with--The Source by James Michener with 1104 pages per Goodreads. The word count for The Source is 438,000 words--a book nearly twice as long with less than 50 more pages.
Pages in a book are not a useful way of determining the number of words in a book. Some book printers sell book by weight, and use larger fonts and heavier paper, and thereby justify you paying more, especially with best sellers. Reprints often use smaller fonts, and skimpier pages, and are priced lower.
jesseriley wrote:
Unlike the traitors & racists, we read on media that annotated the report with page-number references, etc. You were trolled by media that also are too stupid to read it.
So you are calling those on MSNBC who are labeled "pundits" as too stupid to have read it? Because I gave up watching Fox years ago and only rarely watch CNN. Most of my watching is MSNBC.