Jeff Sessions questioned by Mueller's team last week

[Jakexe]

I wonder what most of you will think if Trump is "exonerated". I bet none of you will believe it and say the Russians are mind controlling people now.

Take your example and continue to believe anything they want bereft of facts or evidence.

Why is it so bad when the left do it?

[Deja Thoris]

I wonder what most of you will think if Trump is "exonerated". I bet none of you will believe it and say the Russians are mind controlling people now.

If Mueller came up with a report that exonerated him I'd accept it without if's or buts. No reasonable objective person believes that will happen though, surely?

[Skroe]

If Mueller came up with a report that exonerated him I'd accept it without if's or buts. No reasonable objective person believes that will happen though, surely?

This.

Only one side has been honest throughout this entire affair, and it isn't the Trumpkin side.

The law doesn't give a shit what anybody's opinion is. We're a nation of laws, net men. if Trump broke the law (and by all objective public sector measures so far, it's pretty damning), he pays the price for it.

Unless, @Hollowlithic, we aren't a nation of laws anymore. Is there some special dispensation for people you like?

[Mormolyce]

More grandstanding. Gonna be pretty disappointed when Trump serves his second term as president.

I hope someone is keeping an archive of all of these posts.

[Dontrike]

More grandstanding. Gonna be pretty disappointed when Trump serves his second term as president.

Wow, I'm surprised, you're going to be disappointed when Trump wins his second term? Are you okay?

[Skroe]

I hope someone is keeping an archive of all of these posts.

It doesn't work for lockedout. He is on record as being a self-described shit poster.
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...1#post47723381


He's just another symptom of this forum's mods refusal to deal with their serious troll problem, the way it should be dealt with. The way most other online communities are dealing with it.

In fact in relation to this particular individual, we have a kind of test case. Prior to SpaceX landing any rockets, this dude loved to rip on them. He didn't know anything about them of course. He was being contrarian. But he doubted the technology and the economic case.

And here we are. SpaceX has landed successfully about 24 times in two years and was the number one launch provide in the world in 2017.

SpaceX, as we all know, is one of the most important companies of our time and precisely in the spirit of American innovation. Lockedout is not a fan because he is threatened by it newness. He's never come clean and his position is as empirically wrongly proven as one can get: SpaceX's record is tremendous, and their costs have fallen through the floor.

And before long they launch the Falcon Heavy, the most powerful rocket launched by the US since Saturn V (and most powerful by anybody since Energia, 30 years ago). So he's not just a little wrong, but a lot wrong.

So I expect when the word on Trump comes down, lockedout will be typical of the Trumpkins. They will never accept it. Even if they have a video tape of Trump cackling with Putin like some sort of real life Lex Luthor, they will never accept it.

[lockedout]

He's just another symptom of this forum's mods refusal to deal with their serious troll problem,

Are you calling me a troll sir?

[lazypeon100]

I agree. Mueller is all prosecutor, and they never ask a question they don't already know the answer to. I wonder if another plea deal is on the way?

I would not be surprised if there are more plea deals. Mueller's investigation is getting to people within Trump's inner circle. Regardless of how the investigation turns out (whether Mueller concludes wrong doing on Trump's part or not, though I believe he will) there will be more people who will have been caught doing wrong and will take a plea deal if possible.

There was no Papadopoulos until suddenly there was. Expect more Papadipolulos'.

[Shadowferal]

I wonder what most of you will think if Trump is "exonerated". I bet none of you will believe it and say the Russians are mind controlling people now.

Pretty big "if."
Unlike the oppiste, of which I'm sure you and your ilk will disappear until you think everyone forgets you ever cheered this treason.

[Dontrike]

I wonder what most of you will think if Trump is "exonerated". I bet none of you will believe it and say the Russians are mind controlling people now.

I wonder what you'll think if Trump is found guilty? Are you prepared to think of all the years kneeling at his feet in a good way?

[zmp]

I wonder what most of you will think if Trump is "exonerated". I bet none of you will believe it and say the Russians are mind controlling people now.

Most of them probably already believes it was the Russians who hacked a weather control toy item from World of Warcraft, to summon storms to attack mighty USA.

[Flarelaine]

Do you know what grandstanding means?

You just need to read some of @Skroe's longer posts to find out. He does have a tendency to grandstand. But that does not mean he is not right. It just means he's theatrical about it, often in an entertaining manner (i.e. when taking Trumpkins down).

[Dontrike]

Most of them probably already believes it was the Russians who hacked a weather control toy item from World of Warcraft, to summon storms to attack mighty USA.

Speaking of believing, remember when you voted for the worst president and believed he would never take vacations and spent more on golf trips than many presidents combined. Remember believing that he was against the Hollywood elite, even though he is one?

Make fun of people all you want, but believing an item is hacked in a game is far less crazy than believing Trump in anything.

[Gestopft]

I wonder what most of you will think if Trump is "exonerated". I bet none of you will believe it and say the Russians are mind controlling people now.

I will accept the results of the Mueller investigation. But it's not like it will change my opinion of Trump at all, because even if it's all somehow a nothing burger in the end (or Trump at least sails free), we'll still have a moronic, unqualified, unstable, narcissistic shitbag for a president. There'll be plenty to "fall back" on.

[Skroe]

You just need to read some of @Skroe's longer posts to find out. He does have a tendency to grandstand. But that does not mean he is not right. It just means he's theatrical about it, often in an entertaining manner (i.e. when taking Trumpkins down).

The problem is that the audience is diverse and engagement with the topics at hand is at various levels. The things I generally like to talk about are (usually) rather complex and I'm not really interested in throwing jabs and running away. So if I'm going to lay out a 32 hit hyper-combo, so to speak, I'm gonna explain why every move matters, so that by the end of it, the entirety of my point is understand.

Let's take for example me explaining to @NYC17 why unilateral nuclear weapons cuts are stupid. Most people have an idea of nuclear weapons policy that is mostly borne out of movies and fiction: that the first thing Russia or the US would nuke of the other is each other's cities. In reality, Colorado Springs (NORAD) and Tampa (Central Command) and Whiteman Airforce Base in Missouri (home of the B-2) and the 450 very spread out ICBM silos are far more significant to the Russians than New York City, or Boston, or Chicago.


And if you think about it this makes an enormous amount of sense. Going back to antiquity , the cornerstone of a successful attack strategy is depreive the enemy of the ability to launch a counter attack, and harden your defenses in anticipation of one (there is a much better way of putting this, an axiom, that escapes me at the moment).

Nuclearly, it makes the most amount of sense perhaps in any domain ever: the consequences of being nuked are so high that there is no higher priority to deprive the other side of the ability TO NUKE YOU in the first place. With hard caps to warheads, and the requirement to launch 2-3 warheads per aimpoint, launching warheads on civilian targets detracts from the overall defense-through-offence approach (known as Counterforce, in nuclear strategy) because you're, in that scenario, not defending yourself against the things that can actually blow up your ability to attack.

But people don't know that. Most people in those conversations (not referring to NYC17 here to be clear) haven't read the literature so of course they don't know. But MAD isn't a force of nature. MAD isn't some abstraction. MAD is an emergent property as a result of a set of behaviors of two adversaries and there ARE scenarios where MAD doesn't hold and it is the job of colonels and generals on both sides to think of what those are. Even in a nuclear war, the point would be to 'win', not immolate the Earth in some ritualistic death pyre for the human race. MAD is not some kind of holy sacrament or something.

I use phrase things the way I do, go into the detail I go into, because even if the specific person I'm talking to gets it, not everybody reading does. Maybe folks will learn something from it.

[Machismo]

Are you calling me a troll sir?

I believe you called yourself one.

[Flarelaine]

The problem is that the audience is diverse and engagement with the topics at hand is at various levels. The things I generally like to talk about are (usually) rather complex and I'm not really interested in throwing jabs and running away. So if I'm going to lay out a 32 hit hyper-combo, so to speak, I'm gonna explain why every move matters, so that by the end of it, the entirety of my point is understand.

...

I use phrase things the way I do, go into the detail I go into, because even if the specific person I'm talking to gets it, not everybody reading does. Maybe folks will learn something from it.

Here's hoping. Until then, keep it up. It's good to have someone committed to long explanations.

[Pannonian]

If Mueller came up with a report that exonerated him I'd accept it without if's or buts. No reasonable objective person believes that will happen though, surely?

If this would be the case, then we have to accept this. Tbh i'm not sure if there really was collusion, seems like they tried, but were too incompetent (how surprising). Leaves obstruction of justice, which seems more likely by the day. Or some other stuff - money laundering, taxes?

But lets assume all of this is just smoke and Trump i a paragorn of justice. Then that has to be accepted. I don't believe in repeating an investigation until you get the result you want (Benghazi...).

BUT! it wouldn't change that Trump is a horrible president, and he needs to be criticized for his behaviour. It almost seem like there isn't enough scrutiny as some things that were unthinkable before are kinda normalized right now and no big deal - paying out a porn star? That would have destroyed any other president before.

[NYC17]

The problem is that the audience is diverse and engagement with the topics at hand is at various levels. The things I generally like to talk about are (usually) rather complex and I'm not really interested in throwing jabs and running away. So if I'm going to lay out a 32 hit hyper-combo, so to speak, I'm gonna explain why every move matters, so that by the end of it, the entirety of my point is understand.

Let's take for example me explaining to @NYC17 why unilateral nuclear weapons cuts are stupid. Most people have an idea of nuclear weapons policy that is mostly borne out of movies and fiction: that the first thing Russia or the US would nuke of the other is each other's cities. In reality, Colorado Springs (NORAD) and Tampa (Central Command) and Whiteman Airforce Base in Missouri (home of the B-2) and the 450 very spread out ICBM silos are far more significant to the Russians than New York City, or Boston, or Chicago.


And if you think about it this makes an enormous amount of sense. Going back to antiquity , the cornerstone of a successful attack strategy is depreive the enemy of the ability to launch a counter attack, and harden your defenses in anticipation of one (there is a much better way of putting this, an axiom, that escapes me at the moment).

I'm well aware of your position on this. It's not exactly a secret you just unveiled. Your "explanation" isn't anything more than a previously expressed opinion. I disagree with your premise and assertions you create off of that premise.

It's simple, we just disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

You just need to read some of @Skroe's longer posts to find out. He does have a tendency to grandstand. But that does not mean he is not right. It just means he's theatrical about it, often in an entertaining manner (i.e. when taking Trumpkins down).

Alrighty.

I was highlighting how lockedout doesn't know how to use words appropriately.

[Skroe]

I'm well aware of your position on this. It's not exactly a secret you just unveiled. Your "explanation" isn't anything more than a previously expressed opinion. I disagree with your premise and assertions you create off of that premise.

It's simple, we just disagree.

What I state about how nuclear weapons are intended to be used, the theory behind how cuts work, what sites are more likely to be targeted and that stuff isn't my opinion.

It is fact.

Or let me put it like this. The biggest advance to US nuclear weapons in the last decade has been the introduction of so called superfuses.

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/wh...for-1793260891
https://thebulletin.org/how-us-nucle...ing-super10578


These new explosion triggering mechamisms have the potential to be an incredibly destabilizing technology and per my second link, this is why:




They make the destructive area of a US warhead far, far more accurate than they were before thir introduction. How accurate? Moving the blast zone from within 300 feet of the target to within about 20 feet, which allows the crater to be far, far deeper (and thus destroys the silo in one hit). In fact this technology was pushed by the Obama Administration SPECIFICALLY because the argument is that if a nuclear weapon is more accurate (less chance to miss), then it can be smaller. The next gen of nuclear weapons the US is building, thanks to Obama by the way, all have one feature in common: they'll be much more powerful weapons because of advanced precision, but they'll be almost all far smaller weapons in terms of destructive radiuses and yield.

And you can see right there. The intent of this stuff isn't to aim at Russian cities. It's to aim at Russian silos and mobile launchers.

So yeah. Not my opinion. Facts.

My opinion is President Stable Genius provides amble rebuke to any thought as to why nuclear proliferation is a good idea - today's intelligent, measured, moderate Presidents can be replaced with unstable moronic lunatics tomorrow. But Russia and China don't get something for nothing. If they cheat, we cheat 1 for 1. If they want to cut, we cut together. But not one damn thing for free. Tell me, is that an unreasonable position?