America under President Trump

[eyeball]

12 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) If someone says "I have proof that Bubber Miley committed a crime" it's not collusion or any other crime for me to agree to look at it. You could make a better argument that it's my duty.

That's just common sense. 

Yet if the MSM says this about Trump you come unglued.

That's just right-wing sense.

BTW can anyone tell me the difference between common sense and groupthink? I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask and this seems like a good one.

Edited May 10, 2019 by eyeball

[Carlus Magnus]

7 hours ago, BubberMiley said:

Show me one MSM article that said Trump colluded with Russia.  They only pointed out all the evidence of it, which was all true.

You're full of shit and you have nothing.

What's wrong with you.  I quoted what you said, here it is again.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yet if the MSM says this about Trump you come unglued.

That's just right-wing sense.

Since when is "agree to look at it" the same as "I would instantly start broadcasting to the entire world that it's an absolute fact and that Hillary is about to be impeached, and I would continue to do so long after a thorough investigation by the FBI turned up NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME"? 

How do you even try to equate the two?

That's left sense. AKA sense has completely left the room.

 

[Carlus Magnus]

10 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yet if the MSM says this about Trump you come unglued.

That's just right-wing sense.

BTW can anyone tell me the difference between common sense and groupthink? I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask and this seems like a good one.

Press coverage of Trump has been 90% Negative.  It's journalistic fraud.  POTUS Trump is doing a pretty damn good job for America.  The MSM demonstrate no professional objectivity with Trump.  

What's to hate about Trump ? Really.

The US economy is outstanding, he has not gotten us into any new wars, he made progress with North Korea.  US unemployment is at historic lows, more women and blacks are working today than ever.  

 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Since when is "agree to look at it" the same as "I would instantly start broadcasting to the entire world that it's an absolute fact and that Hillary is about to be impeached, and I would continue to do so long after a thorough investigation by the FBI turned up NO EVIDENCE OF A CRIME"? 

How do you even try to equate the two?

That's left sense. AKA sense has completely left the room.

 

So says the guy who just compared bubbermiley to Trump 

[WestCanMan]

Quote

BTW can anyone tell me the difference between common sense and groupthink? I've been waiting for an opportunity to ask and this seems like a good one.

Common sense is something that's so easily figured out that there's no burden of proof required. 

Groupthink is a Tucker Carlson word afaik. I assume it means that people jump on the bandwagon and just believe what their leader, Hillary, tells them. For example: "The election was stolen, Trump colluded." 

There are still millions of people who believe that despite all the evidence that she was the one who colluded with Russians, she's a known debate cheater, she cheated to win the nomination, she lied about dead people in Benghazi, she killed her own campaign by saying "basket of undesireables", etc, etc. 

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, Carlus Magnus said:

What's to hate about Trump ? Really.

He is loved too don't forget.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

So says the guy who just compared bubbermiley to Trump 

I think you can see as plain as day that my comment is completely on point. I didn't have to reply with a hopeless distraction, like you just did.

[BubberMiley]

35 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1) If someone says "I have proof that Bubber Miley committed a crime" it's not collusion or any other crime for me to agree to look at it. You could make a better argument that it's my duty.

That's just common sense. 

2) Russians did what they do. They spread discord in the US. You're still working to achieve their goal today, 4 years later. Stalin would call you useful.

3) They targeted Hillary. No one has proof that Trump asked them to. Period. That's what's required for there to be collusion.

If I put out some FB posts to help Hillary win, without her asking me to do it, would that mean that she colluded with Canadians?

 

Okay. I'll help you along. Here's a quote from the Mueller executive summary link I just posted:

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This means "yeah, this would have led to an indictment if it were anyone but the president." 

[BubberMiley]

Or this one:

First, the Office determined that Russia's two principal interference operations in the 2016 U.S. presidential election—the social media campaign and the hacking-and-dumping operations—violated U.S. criminal law. ... Second, while the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges. ... Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. ...while this report embodies factual and legal determinations that the Office believes to be accurate and complete to the greatest extent possible, given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light on (or cast in a new light) the events described in the report

So it says there are numerous links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government and many instances of the Trump campaign lying about it, but the investigation was sufficiently kneecapped by information that was made unavailable, so it couldn't draw enough evidence to support criminal charges. Some exoneration, eh?

[BubberMiley]

How would you feel if the only reason they were not able to gather enough evidence was because of obstruction of justice? Because the report also says this:

"At the same time, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."

[WestCanMan]

3 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Okay. I'll help you along. Here's a quote from the Mueller executive summary link I just posted:

"Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President's conduct. The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

This means "yeah, this would have led to an indictment if it were anyone but the president." 

That doesn't mean that evidence of collusion exists at all. That's just a combination of your own wishful thinking and poor reading comprehension.

It means Trump took enough actions that make it reasonable to have an investigation when one of the two major political parties requested it.

For example being happy to talk about leaked material, making a joke about Russia finding the other 33,000 emails. He had the intent to use the information to win an election. He showed a willingness to accept evidence of Hillary's crime.

 

You could make an argument that there were enough reasons why it was important to have an investigation. 

You can not make the argument that there was ever enough evidence for anyone to say that "Trump colluded with Russia". Even by the civil standard of preponderance of evidence.... They dug far enough. They found lots of evidence that help was offered and rebuffed, multiple times. Why would the Russians keep asking if their offer was accepted?

 

[eyeball]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I think you can see as plain as day that my comment is completely on point. I didn't have to reply with a hopeless distraction, like you just did.

You might have a point if bub was as famous and important as trump but he just isn't so...

[BubberMiley]

13 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That doesn't mean that evidence of collusion exists at all. That's just a combination of your own wishful thinking and poor reading comprehension.

 

 

Try again. I'll break it down to the key point for you:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

[WestCanMan]

19 minutes ago, BubberMiley said:

Try again. I'll break it down to the key point for you:

"The evidence we obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were making a traditional prosecutorial judgment."

It doesn't say "the evidence of collusion we obtained". If they had that then charges would be laid. It just says he acted in a way that was suspicious. But they even found his obvious joke "suspicious". Said it might be "treason". All BS.

[WestCanMan]

And make no mistake Bubber - Hillary would have been no less eager to talk about "leaked or hacked" info about Trump, so what constitutes suspicion for Trump is basically just normal behaviour.

If the knowledge wasn't out there that Hillary's email security was baby soft then the Ruskies probably wouldn't have been fishing for it.

[Carlus Magnus]

Don't know about you folks, but I kind of like the Innocent until proven guilty standard.

 

As far as Mueller's investigation

Mueller found nothing prosecutable on Trump.

So what do you want to do?  Do you really think there is something out there Mueller missed.  Mueller took 2 years, had 20 lawyers working for him, plus 40 FBI agents, plus private contractors, all working full time for 2 years looking for Trumps criminal activity.  He found nothing prosecutable.  

Guy sounds pretty fucking clean to me.  

 

[Realitycheck]

42 minutes ago, Carlus Magnus said:

Don't know about you folks, but I kind of like the Innocent until proven guilty standard.

 

As far as Mueller's investigation

Mueller found nothing prosecutable on Trump.

So what do you want to do?  Do you really think there is something out there Mueller missed.  Mueller took 2 years, had 20 lawyers working for him, plus 40 FBI agents, plus private contractors, all working full time for 2 years looking for Trumps criminal activity.  He found nothing prosecutable.  

Guy sounds pretty fucking clean to me.  

 

Thing is, Mueller's investigation is not concluded. He may no longer be involved, but there are a number of investigations connected to or arising from Mueller's report still proceedings. This is aside from the NY State investigations still underway.  NY just passed legislation which will allow Chump's IRS records to be released to the investigative committee. That is something Chump cannot interfere in unless he declares war on NY State...and where would he get the troops to attack another state? There'd be revolution at the very least. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Realitycheck said:

....That is something Chump cannot interfere in unless he declares war on NY State...and where would he get the troops to attack another state? There'd be revolution at the very least. 

 

Great fiction...not reality.    No wonder Trump keeps winning.

[Realitycheck]

5 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Great fiction...not reality.    No wonder Trump keeps winning.

Are you Egyptian? Denial is strong in you...in fact it is all you have. Everything I wrote is fact. Deny it all you need to to maintain your ignorance. 

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

Are you Egyptian? Denial is strong in you...in fact it is all you have. Everything I wrote is fact. Deny it all you need to to maintain your ignorance. 

 

Tell us all again about the Trump troops attacking New York...please provide all the details including force structure, commanders, logistics, primary targets, etc.

Then please do the same for the resulting "revolution".   Would it be like the revolution that booted Canada's king right in the ass ?

 

[Realitycheck]

16 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Tell us all again about the Trump troops attacking New York...please provide all the details including force structure, commanders, logistics, primary targets, etc.

Then please do the same for the resulting "revolution".   Would it be like the revolution that booted Canada's king right in the ass ?

 

Don't be such an obtuse assl.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Realitycheck said:

Don't be such an obtuse assl.

 

Come on....let us in on Trump's plans to attack New York and capture his tax returns !

Don't post stupid ideas if you can't accept mocking of same.

Edited May 10, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[BubberMiley]

1 hour ago, Carlus Magnus said:

Don't know about you folks, but I kind of like the Innocent until proven guilty standard.

 

As far as Mueller's investigation

Mueller found nothing prosecutable on Trump.

So what do you want to do?  Do you really think there is something out there Mueller missed.  Mueller took 2 years, had 20 lawyers working for him, plus 40 FBI agents, plus private contractors, all working full time for 2 years looking for Trumps criminal activity.  He found nothing prosecutable.  

Guy sounds pretty fucking clean to me.  

 

But they are operating on the assumption a sitting president can't be indicted. But his campaign can, and has been, and will be.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Realitycheck said:

Thing is, Mueller's investigation is not concluded. He may no longer be involved, but there are a number of investigations connected to or arising from Mueller's report still proceedings. This is aside from the NY State investigations still underway.  NY just passed legislation which will allow Chump's IRS records to be released to the investigative committee. That is something Chump cannot interfere in unless he declares war on NY State...and where would he get the troops to attack another state? There'd be revolution at the very least. 

The Dems won the house based on their cries of “Trump colluded with Russia”. CNN and MSNBC pimped that crap to their flock for two years and they’ve noticed that it’s still working. 

I doubt that NY State can tell a federal institution what they have to do. 

The Dems’ assault on privacy is insane.