***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[getback]

If that cost my membership, then so be it.

Now we're talkin.

 

[boris]

While I agree that many of his core supporters will defend him no matter what I’ve noticed a change in tone of conversation in some of the online political spaces I keep up with. Even with the hardcore supporters. The tone has shifted from “Trump is a true American who cares about American values”
To “we knew what we were getting”. One thing about having a white collar job in a blue collar industry is that I get some insight into white working class Middle class America. There are genuinely people that were able to pull a lever from trump simply because race and social issues dont show up in their lives. It’s something they hear about on tv but never see. It’s ignorance in its purest form. And we can talk about how that means white supremacy is working as intended in another conversation. But with that said, Trump is becoming more and more unpalatable for a lot people. And he has been since the 2018 elections. It is it enough to keep him out of office? I’m not sure. But the plausible deniability shtick in terms of his character is getting harder and harder to maintain.

Now that you mention it, I can think of several people I know that have voted republican most of their lives, but now they're talking about which democrat they're gonna support in 2020.

 

[dwalk31]

Now we're talkin.

In my opinion, diversity of thought and opinion is a thing of value. If there is none, then there is not much of discussion to be had.

I can feel that the report was a nothingburger as there were no further indictments. It found that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russia to influence the election. Someone else can disagree with that assessment. That does not mean we are antagonizing each other. We just have a difference of opinion on the analysis of available facts.

Silencing such differing opinions is not something I support.

 

[plansb]

dwalk standing up to bullies

 

[dacomeup]

Again, Sea-lioning 101. Incessant bad-faith invitations to engage of debate. Now we're back to the part of the cycle where there are calls for civility and encouraging debate on difference of opinions.

 

[frenchbreadbuilds]

Now that you mention it, I can think of several people I know that have voted republican most of their lives, but now they're talking about which democrat they're gonna support in 2020.

While that’s a great thing, and I think there a ton of people out there that voted for both Obama and Trump, that are gonna be turned away form trump, I’m not sure if there will be a massive exodus from the Republican Party to the Dems. I do think there will be those that will instead back a less disruptive establishment candidate, if the republicans can actually produce one.

 

[RustyShackleford]

DWalk you are full of it. You are not just hear to offer a different take, you are here to antagonize. People are disrespectful toward you because you have been toward them.

You antagonize by quoting post with "YIKES". When you first got here there were other posters brushing up against the line on racial issues and when you saw members upset by this you poked them on those issues. You suggested that my deserve to help poor black people must be motivated by my families need for it. If some makes a figurative interpretation of something to demand a literal take. Then if someone makes a literal take you what to make a figurative take. You argue semantics when your argument runs out stem and demand evidence from people while hardly providing any yourself. You give cover to racist and bigots yet pearl-clutching when you think affluent white people have been attacked and use the oppression of minorities to draw some parallels to try and guilt trip people. All the while giving little care for said oppression. You bait and bait and bait and then someone engages your main focus seems to talk in circles to frustrate them.

You are here to troll people, not offer a difference of opinion. You will call this place a echo chamber even when debates are going on among other members. Other people are not on the edge of being banned because other members don't have the long track record of insincere buffoonery you do.

Stop playing the victim, you are not one. Stop acting like you are taking a principled stance, you are not doing that.

You are just a troll who is doubling down on his schtick. Keeping going though, because I welcome the fallout from that decision

 

[Belgium]

I can feel that the report was a nothingburger as there were no further indictments.

As a lawyer, would you describe the following as a "nothingburger"?

A subject in a criminal investigation, 3 days after finding out his personal conduct is under investigation for obstruction of justice, orders the firing of the Special Counsel knowing that he had no just cause to do after repeatedly being advised of that fact by his top advisers and the DOJ itself.

After the WH counsel initally refused to carry out the order, the subject pressured the WH counsel a second time to carry out the order. "Mueller has to go. Call me back when it's done."

2 days after ordering the removal of the Special Counsel, the subject under criminal investigation instructed an intermediary to pressure the recused Attorney General into obstructing the investigation by limiting the scope of the investigation to "only future election interference", thus blocking the investigation from investigating Russian interference in 2016 and obstruction of justice.


A month later, the subject under criminal investigation requested a status update from the intermediary about the task.
Within hours after the intermediary had made it clear he had not pressured the Attorney General yet, the subject under criminal investigation made it clear that the AG's job was in jeopardy.


When the press reported on the efforts to remove the Special Counsel without any valid cause, the subject under criminal investigation ordered the WH Counsel to publicly lie to the press and create a false record (for who?) stating no such order occurred.


Direct quote from the report:
“The evidence supports the inference that the [subject under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice] intended [convicted criminal target/witness] to believe he could receive a pardon, which would make cooperation with the government as a means of obtaining a lesser sentence unnecessary.”

 

[blastercombo]

What’s the need for “both sides” when the other only wants to say rape, sexual assault, racism, child abuse, etc are ok?

YOU people need to be put on a list

 

[dwalk31]

DWalk you are full of it. You are not just hear to offer a different take, you are here to antagonize. People are disrespectful toward you because you have been toward them.

You antagonize by quoting post with "YIKES". When you first got here there were other posters brushing up against the line on racial issues and when you saw members upset by this you poked them on those issues. You suggested that my deserve to help poor black people must be motivated by my families need for it. If some makes a figurative interpretation of something to demand a literal take. Then if someone makes a literal take you what to make a figurative take. You argue semantics when your argument runs out stem and demand evidence from people while hardly providing any yourself. You give cover to racist and bigots yet pearl-clutching when you think affluent white people have been attacking and use the oppression of minorities to draw some parallels. All the while giving little care for said oppression. You bait and bait and bait and then someone engages your main focus seems to talk in circles to frustrate them.

You are here to troll people, not offer a difference of opinion. You will call this place a echo chamber even when debates are going on among other members. Other people are not on the edge of being banned because other members don't have the long track record of insincere buffoonery you do.

Stop playing the victim, you are not one. Stop acting like you are taking a principled stance, you are not doing that.

You are just a troll who is doubling down on his schtick. Keeping going though, because I welcome the fallout from that decision

This is your opinion. It is incorrect. I assure you I know my intent better than you do. And it is to offer my opinion on political discussions. In this thread. There are posters in here who comment and we agree to disagree. I don't call them names or mock them, like you do.

I have talked about several issues on here. You just don't agree with them. You believe I am wrong, and that is your choice. But me being pro-life is not antagonizing you. Me supporting the tax plan is not antagonizing you. Me thinking that the continuation and rhetoric surrounding the Mueller probe was the result of sour grapes from Hillary losing the election is not antagonizing you.

Yea, I did the Yikes, wow, smh, etc to highlight the hypocrisy of the pearl-clutching of members on here that say they are appalled by the President's tweets and comments but say worse. If you notice, I have stopped using that because of all of the "antagonization" that many claimed. But, when I stopped, others did it instead (to mock me). But that is not counted as antagonization? When I post, people post sea lion gifs and memes but that is not antagonization?

I do not report any poster. I do not complain. I do "block users." And yet, I am the one that is antagonizing and trolling? It is not trolling because you disagree with me.

 

[dwalk31]

As a lawyer, would you describe the following as a "nothingburger"?

A subject in a criminal investigation, 3 days after finding out his personal conduct is under investigation for obstruction of justice, orders the firing of the Special Counsel knowing that he had no just cause to do after repeatedly being advised of that fact by his top advisers and the DOJ itself.

After the WH counsel initally refused to carry out the order, the subject pressured the WH counsel a second time to carry out the order. "Mueller has to go. Call me back when it's done."

2 days after ordering the removal of the Special Counsel, the subject under criminal investigation instructed an intermediary to pressure the recused Attorney General into obstructing the investigation by limiting the scope of the investigation to "only future election interference", thus blocking the investigation from investigating Russian interference in 2016 and obstruction of justice.


A month later, the subject under criminal investigation requested a status update from the intermediary about the task.
Within hours after the intermediary had made it clear he had not pressured the Attorney General yet, the subject under criminal investigation made it clear that the AG's job was in jeopardy.


When the press reported on the efforts to remove the Special Counsel without any valid cause, the subject under criminal investigation ordered the WH Counsel to publicly lie to the press and create a false record (for who?) stating no such order occurred.

When I say nothingburger I am saying that it provided no indictments as it related to Russian collusion to influence the election and/or obstruction of justice related to such Russian collusion. Basically, it was nothing more than a bunch of circumstantial items that even Mueller could not say rose to the level of obstruction of justice. After two years, that is a "nothingburger" in my opinion compared to how it was hyped in the media.

 

[Belgium]

When I say nothingburger I am saying that it provided no indictments as it related to Russian collusion to influence the election and/or obstruction of justice related to such Russian collusion. Basically, it was nothing more than a bunch of circumstantial items that even Mueller could not say rose to the level of obstruction of justice. After two years, that is a "nothingburger" in my opinion compared to how it was hyped in the media.

Mueller specifically said in the report that if he could exonerate Trump based on the evidence, he would. But he was unable to do so based on the evidence.
The report makes multiple references to Congress' authority, explicitly contradicts Barr's assertion that Mueller's decision to not issue a judgment on obstruction did not take into account the DOJ's regulation of indicting sitting president, and contradicts Barr's assertion that the report lays out exculpatory evidence for each of the episodes.


I have actually read much of the report, for the record.

 

[RustyShackleford]

We live in an America with rampant voter suppression, a cowardly press that never takes the GOP to task, propaganda campaigns from foreign governments, and a news network dedicated to protecting the president, and white supremacy is still more addictive to cruel and self destructive white people than even Oxy.

So of course Trump has a good shot in 2020.

But Trump is in trouble, more than he realizes. His base is not enough to win. Running the same campaign he did won't work. The economy is pretty much propping dude up at this point.

 

[dwalk31]

Mueller specifically said in the report that if he could exonerate Trump based on the evidence, he would. But he was unable to do so based on the evidence.

Robert Mueller is a prosecutor. His job/duty was not to exonerate. That is why it is odd to say he did not exonerate the president in my opinion. He also did not indict anyone in the president's campaign for collusion or obstruction. For an indictment you only need probable cause.

Of course, you can't indict a sitting president, but he could be indicted later. But the investigation ended with an announcement of no further indictments related to the probe and a finding that there was no Russian collusion.

It appears to me that he wasn't able to find enough evidence to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. So he ended the investigation and said there was no collusion but I can't really say if there was obstruction (which is really odd to me).

Edit: After reading more of the report, this is almost Comey levels of not wanting to be the story while still becoming the story. I am interested to hear his inevitable testimony.

 

[Belgium]

Excerpt from the report explicitly contradicting Barr and thereby proving he was lying.
If he wasn't lying, he should resign for incompetence.
Mueller also adds that another factor in deciding not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment was that a federal criminal accusation against a sitting president would potentially preempt Congress' authority to address presidential misconduct.

A bit further down, the report explicitly states that Mueller's team determined to apply an approach that was never going to make a prosecutorial judgment one way or the other.

 

[RustyShackleford]

The purpose of Barr's presser was give conservatives a counter point to Mueller.

Republicans at my job are citing Barr more than the actual report. They want to stay in the frame that only Barr's interruptation of the report matters even if the report says opposite.

We are living on Animal Farm, and Barr is Squealer.

 

[dwalk31]

Mueller also adds that another factor in deciding not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment was that a federal criminal accusation against a

The decision not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment is what really muddied this process. It is as if he wanted to give both sides talking points.

 

[whywesteppin]

The Mueller Report is untrue, filled with fabricated statements....The Mueller Report totally clears me.

This man gets it.

 

[noskey]

I dont want to see DWalk banned until the other dozen+ investigations into Trump and Co are closed. Especially the SDNY investigation.

Only then will we have UNLIMITED POWER to strike down the OBSTRUCTIONIST LIBS and finally take our country back! No collusion! No obstruction! #MAKEWINTERFELLGREATAGAIN #MAGAFELL #2020toINFINITY

 

[Belgium]

The decision not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment is what really muddied this process. It is as if he wanted to give both sides talking points.

Agreed, to some extent. The report makes it clear that the prosecutors set out to avoid making a traditional judgment one way or the other.
The number of references to Congress' authority to address presidential wrongdoing suggests the prosecutors perhaps intended to let Congress make a judgment. Barr testified under oath that Mueller did not ask him to make a judgment.

If Mueller didn't ask Barr to make the call, but also set out to take an approach that was never going to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment anyway, what was the reason for that?

That's something only Mueller can answer though.

 

[RustyShackleford]

This is your opinion. It is incorrect. I assure you I know my intent better than you do. And it is to offer my opinion on political discussions. In this thread. There are posters in here who comment and we agree to disagree. I don't call them names or mock them, like you do.

I have talked about several issues on here. You just don't agree with them. You believe I am wrong, and that is your choice. But me being pro-life is not antagonizing you. Me supporting the tax plan is not antagonizing you. Me thinking that the continuation and rhetoric surrounding the Mueller probe was the result of sour grapes from Hillary losing the election is not antagonizing you.

Yea, I did the Yikes, wow, smh, etc to highlight the hypocrisy of the pearl-clutching of members on here that say they are appalled by the President's tweets and comments but say worse. If you notice, I have stopped using that because of all of the "antagonization" that many claimed. But, when I stopped, others did it instead (to mock me). But that is not counted as antagonization? When I post, people post sea lion gifs and memes but that is not antagonization?

I do not report any poster. I do not complain. I do "block users." And yet, I am the one that is antagonizing and trolling? It is not trolling because you disagree with me.

Again, you are not a victim.

Look how you completely ignore the issues with your rhetorical tactics. You are not getting looking at a thread ban for your perceive disrespect, or difference in opinion; I am just pointing it out to show you are not some victim. The real issue is how you engage in debates with people that wanted to debate in good faith. That is the trolling Meth is calling you out for. Your track record for this long precedes the sea lion gifs. So it doesn't go both ways in that aarea.You have repeatedly debated in bad faith, just to be antagonizing. It is your rhetorical tactics that it the issue, not your conservative views.

You can interperate the situation to make yourself look better, but observable reality clearly shows you are a troll.

 

[blastercombo]

I dont want to see DWalk banned until the other dozen+ investigations into Trump and Co are closed. Especially the SDNY investigation.

Only then will we have UNLIMITED POWER to strike down the OBSTRUCTIONIST LIBS and finally take our country back! No collusion! No obstruction! #MAKEWINTERFELLGREATAGAIN #MAGAFELL #2020toINFINITY

I want him banned now. He’s a racist, sexual abuse apologist, rapist apologist, etc


Oh and a complete fake

 

[noskey]

I want him banned now. He’s a racist, sexual abuse apologist, rapist apologist, etc


Oh and a complete fake

Yikes wow and smh. These personal attacks are something only angry libs would stoop so low for. I dont think I've EVER seen such hostility towards someone, especially the level of harrassment that our PRESIDENT ELECT has seen. Unpresidented the level of hatred that these pitiful hater libs are showing our Permanent President. Please, we must be civil. And own the libs once and for all.

 

[IATT]

dwalk31 ya boy’s 2020 official song and artist?

 

[IATT]

I want him banned now. He’s a racist, sexual abuse apologist, rapist apologist, etc


Oh and a complete fake

Sounding like asking twitter to live up to their policies regarding trump blatantly breaking them