Donald Trump

1115211531155115711581226

Comments

  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 10,934
    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.
     
    Yeah here's the download link. No need to put money in somebody's pocket for it: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
    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
  • 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.

    Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

    To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

    You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,102
    tbergs said:
    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.
    Just messing with ya...it's friday.

    I do think white collar crime is harder to prove in many cases...but I would certainly agree that the punishments are skewed big time in most cases.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,102
    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.
     
    Ima save myself the $10 and the time and let you tell me all about it when you are done!
    hippiemom = goodness
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,502
    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.

    Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

    To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

    You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?
    I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
    Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 5,774
    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.....
    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.
     
    Ima save myself the $10 and the time and let you tell me all about it when you are done!
    I'm sure someone will be selling cliff notes by next Friday or just re-read that Barr 4 page summary. That covers it all...up.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 20,201
    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.
     
    Ima save myself the $10 and the time and let you tell me all about it when you are done!
    Plausible deniability and failure to take responsibility for your knowledge. Not surprised.
     
    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: 3,502
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,896
    mace1229 said:
    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.

    Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

    To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

    You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?
    I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
    Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.
    Trump is counting on your vote...as well as the votes of millions of others who've expressed similarly flawed and uninformed opinions of the Mueller Report findings. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,502
    mace1229 said:
    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.

    Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

    To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

    You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?
    I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
    Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.
    Trump is counting on your vote...as well as the votes of millions of others who've expressed similarly flawed and uninformed opinions of the Mueller Report findings. 
    Isn't that a little harsh? It was just released yesterday. Give me some time to gather information before you us of being flawed and uninformed on the matter. I mean, jeez, when was I suppose to catch up on all the news? Working full time with 2 small kids is going to take a few days. Thats why my first posted I asked what was I missing, because I didn't understand the uproar. 
    Still didn't get an answer other than saying I'm a bad person for not having read up on 488 pages in less than a day....
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 20,201
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    If you’ve read any of it, you’d know there’s a summary, a richly detailed table of contents and what’s in those few pages has been reported on. Not hard to do unless you don’t.
    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©
  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 21,184
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    So you need to read the whole report to decide wether this man is unfit to lead this country? Ok I can understand that specially since he’s only been in office for more than two yrs , sometimes it takes a long time to figure out you’ve been fooled..
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 9,995
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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.

    Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

    To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

    You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?
    I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
    Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.
    Trump is counting on your vote...as well as the votes of millions of others who've expressed similarly flawed and uninformed opinions of the Mueller Report findings. 
    Isn't that a little harsh? It was just released yesterday. Give me some time to gather information before you us of being flawed and uninformed on the matter. I mean, jeez, when was I suppose to catch up on all the news? Working full time with 2 small kids is going to take a few days. Thats why my first posted I asked what was I missing, because I didn't understand the uproar. 
    Still didn't get an answer other than saying I'm a bad person for not having read up on 488 pages in less than a day....
    Yes, you did get an answer - Juggler laid out part of what you were missing.
     
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 3,502
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    If you’ve read any of it, you’d know there’s a summary, a richly detailed table of contents and what’s in those few pages has been reported on. Not hard to do unless you don’t.
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    So you need to read the whole report to decide wether this man is unfit to lead this country? Ok I can understand that specially since he’s only been in office for more than two yrs , sometimes it takes a long time to figure out you’ve been fooled..
    That wasn't want I asked. There were several comments criticizing people for not reading it, including one of you. So I was just wondering f those criticiszing others for not reading the report had done so themselves. Looks like the answer is "no" since I am now being told a summary is fine or that just general observations and no report is needed at all.
    Which I could agree with, but then don't go dismiss people and tell them to come back once they read it.
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,896
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    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.

    Just exercise common sense. If it looks like shit and smells like shit... it's likely shit.

    To boot... the central character is a lying, immoral, idiotic, slovenly conman that demonstrates on a daily basis he's completely unstable- hardly worthy of the benefit of doubt.

    You should be crossing your fingers that they have enough evidence to definitively hammer the guy- not express that you're probably going to vote for him again. What is wrong with you?
    I've said many times I'm not a fan of the president. I don't want another 4 years. But I think 4 more years won't accomplish anything, it will be a stale term with nothing getting done. I think some of Sander's ideas could be financially harmful to me and the middle class. So if I have to chose between a failed and potentially damaging platform or something stale, I'll go with stale. 
    Just because I would vote for someone doesn't mean I think he is a good person. And I can still have an opinion about the future of this country without something being wrong with me.
    Trump is counting on your vote...as well as the votes of millions of others who've expressed similarly flawed and uninformed opinions of the Mueller Report findings. 
    Isn't that a little harsh? It was just released yesterday. Give me some time to gather information before you us of being flawed and uninformed on the matter. I mean, jeez, when was I suppose to catch up on all the news? Working full time with 2 small kids is going to take a few days. Thats why my first posted I asked what was I missing, because I didn't understand the uproar. 
    Still didn't get an answer other than saying I'm a bad person for not having read up on 488 pages in less than a day....
    Okay, yeah, I'm sorry if that came off rude. Wasn't my intent but it does get me upset that people can formulate an opinion based on the spin they see on tv or from reading headlines as opposed to getting info from the actual source that's now readily available. 

    You're initial post made it seem like you knew everything that was in the report based off a few tv segments. And the stuff you said about it was demonstrably false. I mean it was pretty much the opposite of what is in the report. And I think Trump is counting on people just taking Tucker Carlson's and Sean Hannity's word for what's in there as opposed to actually reading it.

    And no I've not read the whole thing yet. But I intend to and I do have the pdf and have skimmed through a bunch of it. Also have read a bunch of articles written about it. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 4,483
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    it's only ~400 after redactions


    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 12,102
    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.
     
    Ima save myself the $10 and the time and let you tell me all about it when you are done!
    Plausible deniability and failure to take responsibility for your knowledge. Not surprised.
     
    I’m also not surprised by your response. Sheesh. 


    hippiemom = goodness
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 33,896
    The one that is available to purchase comes with an introduction by Alan Dershowitz. Don't buy that shit. Just read/print out the pdf. 
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 20,201
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    If you’ve read any of it, you’d know there’s a summary, a richly detailed table of contents and what’s in those few pages has been reported on. Not hard to do unless you don’t.
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    So you need to read the whole report to decide wether this man is unfit to lead this country? Ok I can understand that specially since he’s only been in office for more than two yrs , sometimes it takes a long time to figure out you’ve been fooled..
    That wasn't want I asked. There were several comments criticizing people for not reading it, including one of you. So I was just wondering f those criticiszing others for not reading the report had done so themselves. Looks like the answer is "no" since I am now being told a summary is fine or that just general observations and no report is needed at all.
    Which I could agree with, but then don't go dismiss people and tell them to come back once they read it.
    I’m currently reading the first 55 pages as I will print it out and read it as I do. I hate reading documents online, hence why I’m printing it out and am able to take it with me without having to be tied to a computer or trying to read it on my phone. You need to read the full report to understand its conclusions. Again, read it for yourself.
    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©
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 13,319
    mcgruff10 said:
     I don't if this has been posted but this tweet from Trump is freaking hilarious:

    What is it that you find hilarous ?
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 6,485
    Well, it will be Game Over for him at some point, and I hope that is the image we'll see as he surrenders himself to federal custody. Broken, destitute, divorced, alone and bitter. Trump 2021.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 18,975
    mcgruff10 said:
     I don't if this has been posted but this tweet from Trump is freaking hilarious:

    What is it that you find hilarous ?
    I think the whole thing is hilarious. Very very clever lol
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 13,319
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
     I don't if this has been posted but this tweet from Trump is freaking hilarious:

    What is it that you find hilarous ?
    I think the whole thing is hilarious. Very very clever lol
    For someone not watching GoT - what is clever about it?
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • VitalogensiaVitalogensia Posts: 1,194
    mcgruff10 said:
    mcgruff10 said:
     I don't if this has been posted but this tweet from Trump is freaking hilarious:

    What is it that you find hilarous ?
    I think the whole thing is hilarious. Very very clever lol
    For someone not watching GoT - what is clever about it?
    Well first, it owns the libs!  What more do you need?  And it makes the guy that acts tough seem tougher by alluding to fantasy, and to the perpetual 13-year-old, it's basically Shakespeare.
    Virginia Beach 2000; Pittsburgh 2000; Columbus 2003; D.C. 2003; Pittsburgh 2006; Virginia Beach 2008; Cleveland 2010; PJ20 2011; Pittsburgh 2013; Baltimore 2013; Charlottesville 2013; Charlotte 2013; Lincoln 2014; Moline 2014; St. Paul 2014; Greenville 2016; Hampton 2016; Lexington 2016; Wrigley 2016; Prague 2018; Krakow 2018; Berlin 2018; Fenway 2018
  • LizardLizard So CalPosts: 11,913
    this is hilarious...

    Is it over yet? #ITMFA
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 13,319
    Lizard said:
    this is hilarious...


    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • dignindignin Posts: 7,205
    mace1229 said:
    Who here has really read 488 pages in 24 hours?
    I see a lot of criticism for those who haven't, but really, have any of you? I highly doubt it.
    I don't have the time to read it. Like you I have two young children. This is the best short review of the important parts I've heard. It's a great podcast.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/podcasts/the-daily/robert-mueller-report-special-counsel-investigation.html

    Stay tuned with Preet podcast also has a great analysis.
  • Spiritual_ChaosSpiritual_Chaos Posts: 13,319
    edited April 19
    The man they call my enemy. I've seen his eyes, he looks just like me - A mirror...
  • ikiTikiT USAPosts: 7,171
    Bristow VA 05132010 Montreal QC 09072011 Worcester MA 10152013-10162013 Charlottesville VA 10292013 Phoenix AZ 11192013 Leeds UK 07082014 Memphis TN 10142014
    Hampton VA 04182016 Columbia SC 04212016 Fenway Park Boston MA 08072016 Amsterdam NL 06132018

    EV Providence 06152011 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 20,201
    What was that again about criticizing people for their weight or calling them fat?
    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©
Sign In or Register to comment.