Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Shalcker]

Wow what a complete load of bullshit that article is. "I'm not asserting anything, but Mueller is an Clinton-Obama plant blah blah blah.

Makes about as much sense as Trump being Russian plant.

Its a perfect example of why the political right have gone batshit insane. It takes some basic things we know and warps them into a mind bending conspiracy theory which with people like Dacien already pretty disconnected from reality, they swallow whole and become even more reality detached.

Ditto for "left".

[Dacien]

So McCarthy rendered his own argument moot, and yet you, for some reason, still find his agenda worth parroting? That should have been the end of the discussion. He invalidated his own argument, apparently. That should be the end of your love affair with his arguments.

That's the only rebuttal that matters. It's all that's required. This idea that basic, nonsensical, partisan arguments need to be countered with a dissertation is laughable. Basic arguments can be countered with basic facts. Such as the ones provided within your own source. You are correct that it is the best rebuttal, because it is a factual rebuttal. Simple.

In the end, I don't care what political persuasion you consider yourself. However, at the beginning of this discussion you claimed that you consider all sources and give them equal consideration. You don't. At least you have given up that obviously false defense of why you think McCarthy should be taken seriously.

Yeah, just read his preamble conceding a point, and then completely disregard his explanatory rationale, we're done here folks.

He's not rendering his own argument moot, that's the silliest conclusion you could possibly reach. His entire article is full of substance as to why, in spite of his respect for the FBI and FISA court, there is reason to inquire, but you just quit after paragraph two and call it quits.

That's a very shallow refutation, but if others buy into it, by all means.

I mean, your entire post here is quintessentially facile. The fact that you got lauded for it is astonishing.

[cubby]

Wow what a complete load of bullshit that article is. "I'm not asserting anything, but Mueller is an Clinton-Obama plant blah blah blah.

Its a perfect example of why the political right have gone batshit insane. It takes some basic things we know and warps them into a mind bending conspiracy theory which with people like Dacien already pretty disconnected from reality, they swallow whole and become even more reality detached.

The faster the boomers kick the bucket taking all this garbage that's being made and fed to them with them into the grave the better.

We can then start building a decent society.

My wife and I, and separately, a co-worker and I, were just discussing that point. Cannot wait for the idiotic boomers to kick so we can start making some rational decisions and, as you very accurately pointed out, building a decent society.

[Dacien]

Ditto for "left".

I'm honestly not too concerned about the ridicule, the accusations, none of that. The article stands on it's own, and if anyone comes by who isn't dead set left or right, they'll read it and then come see the visceral reaction, the attacks on character, the ridicule, and the surface-level counterarguments... there's a spurious line of thought that you sometimes see, where the amount of people who agree with you correlates to increased validity in your arguments, and we haven't seen that claim yet, but all things considered I don't think the attacks have made a very compelling case, and I'm satisfied with that.

As you point out, criminal collusion between Trump and Russia is about as defensible, but the left sure hops quickly on board that suggestion. It's going to be proven in due time, they say, but Strzok and the Steele dossier? Conspiratorial nonsense, apparently. Nothing to see here.

[Orbitus]

Makes about as much sense as Trump being Russian plant.

Ditto for "left".

There is more evidence that Trump is a Russian plant, than Mueller is a Clinton/Obama plant. But what do you expect from a Russian?

- - - Updated - - -

I'm honestly not too concerned about the ridicule, the accusations, none of that. The article stands on it's own, and if anyone comes by who isn't dead set left or right, they'll read it and then come see the visceral reaction, the attacks on character, the ridicule, and the surface-level counterarguments... there's a spurious line of thought that you sometimes see, where the amount of people who agree with you correlates to increased validity in your arguments, and we haven't seen that claim yet, but all things considered I don't think the attacks have made a very compelling case, and I'm satisfied with that.

As you point out, criminal collusion between Trump and Russia is about as defensible, but the left sure hops quickly on board that suggestion. It's going to be proven in due time, they say, but Strzok and the Steele dossier? Conspiratorial nonsense, apparently. Nothing to see here.

No, it doesn't. The article has already been torn apart and you still defend it.

And the Dossier has had the majority of it proven. Just because you don't see it on Fox or the National Review/Andrew McCarthy article, doesn't mean it hasn't been.

[cubby]

As you point out, criminal collusion between Trump and Russia is about as defensible, but the left sure hops quickly on board that suggestion. It's going to be proven in due time, they say, but Strzok and the Steele dossier? Conspiratorial nonsense, apparently. Nothing to see here.

Why is it every time you post, you conveniently forget that the Special Prosecutor was appointed by the GOP? How can you not remember even that simple fact? This isn't a witch hunt - this is a criminal investigation instigated by the President's own party.

[Orbitus]

Why is it every time you post, you conveniently forget that the Special Prosecutor was appointed by the GOP? How can you not remember even that simple fact? This isn't a witch hunt - this is a criminal investigation instigated by the President's own party.

He still thinks the dossier is conspiratorial nonsense. Even though it has mostly been confirmed. About the only major part that hasn't been, is the pee tapes.

[cubby]

He still thinks the dossier is conspiratorial nonsense. Even though it has mostly been confirmed. About the only major part that hasn't been, is the pee tapes.

Jesus, that's just pathetic. What will it take to turn these Trumpista's around? How much blatant evidence will they need?

[DarkTZeratul]

He still thinks the dossier is conspiratorial nonsense. Even though it has mostly been confirmed. About the only major part that hasn't been, is the pee tapes.

And even then, the testimony from Trump's bodyguard immediately moved that bit from "probably ridiculous" to "surprisingly plausible."

[Captain N]

Jesus, that's just pathetic. What will it take to turn these Trumpista's around? How much blatant evidence will they need?

It's not about evidence or facts. It's about cheerleading for their team -- We've entered a world where people believe their team can do no wrong. If you need any more proof look at the Roy Moore thread. Our resident Trump supporters twisted themselves into pretzels to defend Moore while attacking Franken while our more Moderate and Liberal posters were saying they both need to be punished.

It's basically the pigeon on the chessboard. Everything points against them and yet they're still going to shit all over the place and claim victory.

[Shalcker]

There is more evidence that Trump is a Russian plant, than Mueller is a Clinton/Obama plant. But what do you expect from a Russian?

How exactly do you quantify "evidence" to decide which one is bigger?

But in the end where there will be "more evidence" does not matter. What will matter is proof that might come following that evidence.

Or might not. Not every evidence leads to conviction.

No, it doesn't. The article has already been torn apart and you still defend it.

Where "torn apart" is "he says this at start, so the rest of the article is not worth reading"...

And the Dossier has had the majority of it proven. Just because you don't see it on Fox or the National Review/Andrew McCarthy article, doesn't mean it hasn't been.

So, which parts exactly have been proven? Can you name them yourself?
You can post links too, just tell them here first to prove you actually read what you link.

- - - Updated - - -

And even then, the testimony from Trump's bodyguard immediately moved that bit from "probably ridiculous" to "surprisingly plausible."

Testimony that denied pretty much everything except that yes, he was in Russia in 2013, which everyone already knew? :/
Really?

[cubby]

It's not about evidence or facts. It's about cheerleading for their team -- We've entered a world where people believe their team can do no wrong. If you need any more proof look at the Roy Moore thread. Our resident Trump supporters twisted themselves into pretzels to defend Moore while attacking Franken while our more Moderate and Liberal posters were saying they both need to be punished.

It's basically the pigeon on the chessboard. Everything points against them and yet they're still going to shit all over the place and claim victory.

Well said - and I agree. I'm honestly terrified of how we will ever recover from where we are now. If the Trumpistas can never admit they were wrong, how do we move forward short of just crushing them under our boot?

[NYC17]

Yeah, just read his preamble conceding a point, and then completely disregard his explanatory rationale, we're done here folks.

He's not rendering his own argument moot, that's the silliest conclusion you could possibly reach. His entire article is full of substance as to why, in spite of his respect for the FBI and FISA court, there is reason to inquire, but you just quit after paragraph two and call it quits.

That's a very shallow refutation, but if others buy into it, by all means.

I mean, your entire post here is quintessentially facile. The fact that you got lauded for it is astonishing.

No it isn't. His article is in spite of common and legal sense. Stop pretending like you understand this issue when all you're doing is parroting someone who's entire opinion on it is colored by his conspiratorial and partisan nature.

It's nice that people supported my assertion but my statements don't require their acceptance for what I stated to be accurate and true. They remain so despite your objections and others approval.

Now, you may want to move on to trying an independent thought process. Maybe keep this discussion fresh. McCarthy's nonsense doesn't sell here. Change your product or find a new target market.

Oh, and his refutation of his own bullshit hilariously took place in other places in the article besides "paragraph two". Or did you forget to read the article past that point?

[Captain N]

Well said - and I agree. I'm honestly terrified of how we will ever recover from where we are now. If the Trumpistas can never admit they were wrong, how do we move forward short of just crushing them under our boot?

The best response is to first understand that you can't make everyone happy all the time but you can make some people happy some of the time. We as a nation need to work on listening to the people in the middle and working from there. Leaving the fringe groups to the outside because compromise isn't going to sit well with them no matter what side of the horseshoe they're on.

We know universal healthcare and higher minimum wages are supported by a vast number of Americans and with the Amtrak derailment today bringing to light the need for infrastructure upgrades. Without trying to sound like Bernie Sanders here we need to make sure those extreme people on both sides of the spectrum are just a vocal minority while we move the country forward -- and drag them along kicking and screaming if need be.

[lazypeon100]

Jesus, that's just pathetic. What will it take to turn these Trumpista's around? How much blatant evidence will they need?

I've been reading lately the idea of the sunk cost fallacy being floated around. It would explain why someone who might be a good person can support Trump.

Using my stepfather here as an example, he's 66 and still works as an engineer. He's pretty mechanically inclined, smart, and tech savy for his age. He's nice, funny, and will be the first to help you out if you need it.

He's also incredibly stubborn and it's a battle to get him to admit a mistake on his part. He's a staunch republican and supported Trump through the election. It didn't matter ho many facts I or anyone else presented to him, he believed he was correct. I don't believe it's because he actually supports Trump's agenda or that it's to piss off liberals. I think he voted for him because he's one of those people who never changes how he votes which is frustrating to say the least. He also listens to limbaugh and fox on his own time.

Or at least he used to. Mom basically forced him to stop listening to them and we've dropped talking politics entirely to him. He's slowly coming around to the idea that trump is not a good president on his own. Which is amazing considering it took him years after bush to come to that conclusion for bush.

I think the more people try to confront them in a more antagonistic fashion, the more trumpers dig their heels in. The real issue is getting them away from shows like hannity which are straight propoganda.

[Felya]

No one wanted to work with Trump, because everyone thought he had no chance to win. He ends up surrounding him self with a coalition of the willing. The failed, the tainted, the bottom feeders... all of whole Trump both trusted and relied on to cover his incompetence. This is what is expected when such happens. It’s more unlikely that Trump’s team of goof balls actually knew what they were doing and acting in what they believed was best interest.

What happens when you hire a businessman to fix your car them selfs? A similar fucking mess, at hiring that businessman to fix your country. Why would it be different? Why would his bottom feeders know better?

[Orbitus]

So, which parts exactly have been proven? Can you name them yourself?
You can post links too, just tell them here first to prove you actually read what you link.

This is the only thing that I am going to answer, because the rest of it is Russian propaganda bullshit.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...roborated.html

The answer? A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. This came out in September, I wouldn't be surprised that more of it has been confirmed since there have been Senate and House hearings since then that could confirm a lot of things, even the piss tape like @DarkTZeratul has said.

What Dark is saying, is the bodyguard left Trump alone for a good portion of the night after saying women were offered to Trump. It means it is entirely possible that Trump had hookers up there peeing on his bed and his bodyguard didn't know.

[Shalcker]

This is the only thing that I am going to answer, because the rest of it is Russian propaganda bullshit.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...roborated.html
The answer? A LOT OF IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. This came out in September, I wouldn't be surprised that more of it has been confirmed since there have been Senate and House hearings since then that could confirm a lot of things, even the piss tape like @DarkTZeratul has said.

No, no; no cop-out "a lot of them".

Please name ones in the article before i follow your link to be sure you actually read it.

What Dark is saying, is the bodyguard left Trump alone for a good portion of the night after saying women were offered to Trump. It means it is entirely possible that Trump had hookers up there peeing on his bed and his bodyguard didn't know.

Or more likely nothing actually happened.

Plenty of things are theoretically possible and didn't happen.

[Skroe]

Got a feeling this man is gonna have a bad, bad week.

[Dacien]

No it isn't. His article is in spite of common and legal sense. Stop pretending like you understand this issue when all you're doing is parroting someone who's entire opinion on it is colored by his conspiratorial and partisan nature.

It's nice that people supported my assertion but my statements don't require their acceptance for what I stated to be accurate and true. They remain so despite your objections and others approval.

Now, you may want to move on to trying an independent thought process. Maybe keep this discussion fresh. McCarthy's nonsense doesn't sell here. Change your product or find a new target market.

Oh, and his refutation of his own bullshit hilariously took place in other places in the article besides "paragraph two". Or did you forget to read the article past that point?

McCarthy's on a roll lately. Just dropped another one. I'll spare you, but if any of you out there lean right, it's good stuff.