Donald Trump

1115111521154115611571219

Comments

  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,497
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,768
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Wow, that is really disheartening to hear. I don't like Bernie, but good god, to say you'd vote Trump, again, over him? Yikes! Sorry, I know you are about to get flamed in here, but I can't understand your rationale.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,168
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Nothing surprises me coming from you , I feel for you ! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 12,281
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Wow, that is really disheartening to hear. I don't like Bernie, but good god, to say you'd vote Trump, again, over him? Yikes! Sorry, I know you are about to get flamed in here, but I can't understand your rationale.
    His lack of a moral compass shield be disqualifying. 

    His desire to capitalize politically on a crime by an adversarial govt is impeachable even if not criminal.  
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,974
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Just touching on the first part, you have misunderstood the state of the evidence and the reasons for not proceeding with obstruction charges. If you really did watch a lot of coverage and you still don’t understand why, I don’t know how else to explain it to you. 

    And I am not at all surprised by the last part. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,497
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Wow, that is really disheartening to hear. I don't like Bernie, but good god, to say you'd vote Trump, again, over him? Yikes! Sorry, I know you are about to get flamed in here, but I can't understand your rationale.
    His lack of a moral compass shield be disqualifying. 

    His desire to capitalize politically on a crime by an adversarial govt is impeachable even if not criminal.  
    So the fact he benefited by something that, according to the report, he had no part of is impeachable? Is that what you're saying? How does that make sense?

  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 10,898
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Wow, that is really disheartening to hear. I don't like Bernie, but good god, to say you'd vote Trump, again, over him? Yikes! Sorry, I know you are about to get flamed in here, but I can't understand your rationale.
    His lack of a moral compass shield be disqualifying. 

    His desire to capitalize politically on a crime by an adversarial govt is impeachable even if not criminal.  
    I don't think anyone (other than his most devoted fans) would disagree that he's impeachable. It's just not worth broaching while the GOP controls the senate.


    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 12,281
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Wow, that is really disheartening to hear. I don't like Bernie, but good god, to say you'd vote Trump, again, over him? Yikes! Sorry, I know you are about to get flamed in here, but I can't understand your rationale.
    His lack of a moral compass shield be disqualifying. 

    His desire to capitalize politically on a crime by an adversarial govt is impeachable even if not criminal.  
    So the fact he benefited by something that, according to the report, he had no part of is impeachable? Is that what you're saying? How does that make sense?

    Because as the candidate for POTUS his first duty is to protect the integrity of our democracy and protect the citizens.  He failed to do that.  That's impeachable. 
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,794
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    chinese-happy.jpg
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,794
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Just touching on the first part, you have misunderstood the state of the evidence and the reasons for not proceeding with obstruction charges. If you really did watch a lot of coverage and you still don’t understand why, I don’t know how else to explain it to you. 

    And I am not at all surprised by the last part. 
    Trump is just hoping people watch Fox News instead of reading the actual report.
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,794
    mace1229 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    tbergs said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    Wow, that is really disheartening to hear. I don't like Bernie, but good god, to say you'd vote Trump, again, over him? Yikes! Sorry, I know you are about to get flamed in here, but I can't understand your rationale.
    His lack of a moral compass shield be disqualifying. 

    His desire to capitalize politically on a crime by an adversarial govt is impeachable even if not criminal.  
    So the fact he benefited by something that, according to the report, he had no part of is impeachable? Is that what you're saying? How does that make sense?

    He didn't just benefit from it. He explicitly did not tell the FBI that it was happening....after they warned him about their efforts to help him.



    chinese-happy.jpg
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,768
    The whole situation with Trump only further proves how pathetic this country is at handling white collar criminals. If you have enough money and either ignore or act like you don't know something is an issue, then nothing can be done. But man, we are really good at nailing that guy selling smack on the corner or the person doing 5 miles over the speed limit. Justice fucking blows in this country and some of the statements over the last few days provide zero hope of everyday people being able to exact justice from at least a social acceptance standpoint. I mean, don't you (speaking figuratively for those who think this should just go away) know people like this who work the system and do shady things, but don't get caught or are you also morally compromised so all of this seems normal. It's so fucked, all of it.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,065
    You mean it’s easy to bust someone when you specifically see and have undeniable evidence? Weird
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,497
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,974
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 20,112
    Spend the 10 bucks. Be responsible for your sources of information.

    https://www.amazon.com/Mueller-Report-Special-Counsel-Collusion/dp/1510750169


    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 1,711
    Intro by Trump schill Alan Dershowitz on a DOJ-issued document?  Nice.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,168
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    Your still wrong not that they tried ! THEY DID !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,768
    You mean it’s easy to bust someone when you specifically see and have undeniable evidence? Weird
    You know what I mean, or maybe you don't. Both of those scenarios involve either a dickhead trooper with a hard-on hiding somewhere to bust some middle class schmuck to meet a quota or some undercover narc surveilling an underling. They aren't any more openly obvious. Deception and cover is needed to catch both. Most likely in both cases, the person will just pay a fine or plead guilty because they don't have the time or resources to get off. Low hanging fruit. Whatever, this isn't worth it.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,794
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    Dude. Everything in my reply to you is true. Read the report. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,168
    Again for the clueless, Russia fucking interfered successfully in our elections get that through your head !
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,497
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 17,766
    Bezos proving he is the smartest and richest again selling this on Amazon.  Easy money. 
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,974
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.
    You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,768
    I mean, if you were waiting for an indictment from the Mueller report to tell you Trump is a criminal and a con, then you were a lost cause from the start and there is no turning back.

    I didn't need the Starr report to tell me that Clinton was a liar or a philandering womanizer.

    It seems that some are using this as their scape goat to clear their conscious. Whatever makes you feel better...
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,497
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.
    You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence. 
    I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,768
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.
    You caught a bunch of things that you think essentially exonerate Trump and you missed the most significant take away regarding obstruction? Probably just a coincidence. 
    I'm a single dad on Thursdays, what can you expect? Kids are lucky if they don't get sick Friday morning.
    You don't need to justify your time as a parent. No one has time to keep up with all this bullshit and if they do, wow, that must be exhausting and maddening. I think the point is that there should be more of an unknown view at this point if someone truly wasn't sure what was all found. I can't stand Trump, but I also don't know if what is in the report will make a difference at this point. Most of it was already known or assumed if you were being reasonable. The fact that there is no bombshell in there just speaks to the level of normal we've come to expect with him as President.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,794
    edited April 19
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.
    So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 20,112
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.
    So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....
    Better yet, read the report for yourself. It’s available online for free or spend 10 bucks and read 3 pages a night before you fall asleep. 147 nights you’re done.
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,497
    edited April 19
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    I feel like I must be missing something here. I watched a lot of MSNBC and CNN yesterday and was thoroughly entertained by it. I know there are a lot of idiots on FOX, but I don't know why they are the only ones ever singled out, there's crazies on every cable news channel who are equally biased.
    From what everyone can agree on that I can tell is Trump was exonerated from the collusion accusations and there was not enough evidence to support or disprove the obstruction accusations. Where do so many get this is going to get him impeached? I watched a segment of Rachel Maddow last night and she went on a rant about how not being able to disprove obstruction was proof that there was obstruction. Really? Since when is not proving your innocence actually proof of your guilt?  Pretty much every host from CNN to MSNBC said something similar, and how this is going to bring Trump down. I just don't see it, there was nothing in the reports that I've hear to support any of that.

    I think Trump is embarrassing as a president and I would like to see someone else in office next term. But this just smells like desperation at this point, that so many channels were holding out for such a bomb to drop, and when this is all they have they run with the story they wanted, not with the one they have. I hope both sides stop focusing on Trump and put some efforts into their own agendas other than focusing on taking Trump down, because if my only choices are Trump or a failed 2016 candidate (Sanders, I'm looking at you), I will probably go with Trump again.
    No this is incorrect. There was plenty of evidence that there was collusion. It is a lot of the same stuff that has been documented by the so called fake news over the last two years. What there wasn't evidence of is proof of conspiracy, which is the legal standard for a crime. 

    And Mueller documented an abundance of evidence about his efforts to obstruct justice. Did you read the report? There are 10 instances laid out in explicit detail. Mueller also says the reason he didn't charge him was not because there wasn't evidence but simply because of the DOJ rules against charging a sitting president--meaning if he wasn't the president, he likely would've been charged. This means he was leaving it up to congress to decide if it's an impeachable offense. Kind of the same thing that happened with Nixon. 


    I haven't read the report (as I doubt anyone here has read the whole thing) only the highlights on news. So the findings were not that Russia did try to interfere but that Trump had nothing to do with it. I even heard Maddow concede that Trump wasn't involved with the Russians last night and she solely focused on the obstruction.

    And as far as obstruction, I didn't hear about those 10 instances. But heard Maddow among several others who claimed that the lack of being exonherated was proof he was guilty, which is completely illogical. And if anyone was going to try to bring him down it would be Maddow. So I figured I heard the worst of it.
    I would be very surprised if there was substantial coverage that didn’t mention the multiple instances of suspected obstruction laid out. I’ve read or heard that in every article and interview so far. Inexplicable, really, how you missed that. 
    My wife works evenings on Tuesday and Thursday, so between cooking dinner for the kids, making sure they eat, cooking my own dinner, giving kids a bath, getting them dressed for bed, cleaning the kitchen, putting the kids back to bed when the wind scared them, and finally making my lunch for today. The 2.5 hours that all took is when I had news on in the background. That was my 5:30-8:00 from when I got home from work.  At 8:00 I finally watched Game of Thrones for the week then went to bed.  I think its is pretty explicable I missed a few things, sorry.
    So then come here and ask questions. Don't come in like you know what's in the report after seeing a few talking heads talk about.....
    That is exactly what I did. My first post started with "Am I missing something?" And stated my point of view.
    I almost never comment in this thread, and wouldn't have if I didnt want answers.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
Sign In or Register to comment.