ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

aggromagnet wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

aggromagnet wrote:

If Dems were smart, they'd abandon the impeachment nonsense and start really rallying around someone realistically electable like Biden while there's still time. If you really want to see Trump gone, the last thing he needs is another platform to display his victimhood while also running for re-election against someone who has no chance of actually defeating him.

The impeachment process would just take Congress down a road with a dead end in the middle of nowhere, while Trump would still be firing off 2am tweets from his gold toilet in the White House for another four years.

Ewww Biden..


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/amp/Joe-Biden-Houston-10-year-old-girl-awkward-13903645.php

I pretty much agree on the ewww, but he's the most electable person they've got going at the moment. And he's also the one person they have that could really cut into Trump's base. That could change and one of the other non-extremists could really push ahead as a better candidate. But not if the impeachment obsession continues.

"

I'll let you in on a secret: It won't be Biden. Trump won't be there either.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

aggromagnet wrote:

If Dems were smart, they'd abandon the impeachment nonsense and start really rallying around someone realistically electable like Biden while there's still time. If you really want to see Trump gone, the last thing he needs is another platform to display his victimhood while also running for re-election against someone who has no chance of actually defeating him.

The impeachment process would just take Congress down a road with a dead end in the middle of nowhere, while Trump would still be firing off 2am tweets from his gold toilet in the White House for another four years.

Ewww Biden..


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/amp/Joe-Biden-Houston-10-year-old-girl-awkward-13903645.php

"

pneuma wrote:

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

aggromagnet wrote:

If Dems were smart, they'd abandon the impeachment nonsense and start really rallying around someone realistically electable like Biden while there's still time. If you really want to see Trump gone, the last thing he needs is another platform to display his victimhood while also running for re-election against someone who has no chance of actually defeating him.

The impeachment process would just take Congress down a road with a dead end in the middle of nowhere, while Trump would still be firing off 2am tweets from his gold toilet in the White House for another four years.

Ewww Biden..


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/amp/Joe-Biden-Houston-10-year-old-girl-awkward-13903645.php

I can't believe he did it again after being called out for doing it.

Dude, stop giving shoulder massages to little girls. It's fucking weird.

"

I'll let you in on a secret: It won't be Biden. Trump won't be there either.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Over 900 retired federal prosecutors, whose job was deciding to indict or not have stated that based on the Mueller report they would indict on at least three charges of obstruction of justice if the President was a private citizen. Further they stated that it wasn't even a close call on those three charges. The "cards" are easy to read for the professional card readers whose job it was to read those cards.

I haven’t read a strong rebuttal of Scrotie’s constitutional argument against obstruction. I don’t recall reading a weak rebuttal, either. It’s almost like everyone is talking past one another.

Why should I care about obstruction?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Mueller laid his cards out on the table face up for all to see, that being his report.

Oh c'mon, are you really telling me you read 448 pages without critical thinking? There were holes all over the place.

Why didn't Mueller explain why they just accepted the CrowdStrike report of the DCCC/DNC hack?

Why does Mueller cite a "fairness" doctrine of making sure the accused get a speedy trial, then indict dozens of Russians who we all know will never be extradited for their day in court?

And above all, who is Mueller kidding when he says he can't accuse the President of committing a crime? He says an Office of Legal Council memo stops him. In arguendo, if he'd have ignored that memo and just outright said Trump obstructed justice, would he really have gotten in trouble? Isn't Mueller directly accusing Trump of a crime what almost half of the country was hoping for prior to Mueller's report, and what almost half of the country was fearing to he would do? Did you, an ardent anti-Trump zealot, literally read Mueller excuse away why he couldn't do the one thing you most expected him fo do, and just shrugged and said "okay"!? Mueller's "I can't accuse" argument is Byzantine logic at best and sophistry at worst.

But it goes deeper than that. Relevance is subjective to the individual, and relevance is what separates included signal from omitted noise in a factual account of events. That's the whole point behind the Sherlock Holmes stories — you have the normie account of the relevant details, full of red herrings irrelevant to the truth but made seemingly relevant by our common, socialized mode of thought, and then you have the eccentric who finds relevance in things others do not, things the normal people see but do not observe — that is, that they hold in their perception but fleetingly before discarding it as irrelevant. Even among the things we recall, we often consider it a waste of everyone's time to say everything we remember, because we doubt its relevance to the matter at hand and wish to keep the signal-to-noise ratio at a sufficiently high quality. No one ever lays all their cards on the table, TD, not ever; they only play what they consider to be their best.

I know the standard oath for swearing in a witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that's an impossible oath: no one can tell the whole truth. They can just try to get as close as they can.

"

Turtledove wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Turtledove wrote:

Mueller laid his cards out on the table face up for all to see, that being his report.

Oh c'mon, are you really telling me you read 448 pages without critical thinking? There were holes all over the place.

Why didn't Mueller explain why they just accepted the CrowdStrike report of the DCCC/DNC hack?

Why does Mueller cite a "fairness" doctrine of making sure the accused get a speedy trial, then indict dozens of Russians who we all know will never be extradited for their day in court?

And above all, who is Mueller kidding when he says he can't accuse the President of committing a crime? He says an Office of Legal Council memo stops him. In arguendo, if he'd have ignored that memo and just outright said Trump obstructed justice, would he really have gotten in trouble? Isn't Mueller directly accusing Trump of a crime what almost half of the country was hoping for prior to Mueller's report, and what almost half of the country was fearing to he would do? Did you, an ardent anti-Trump zealot, literally read Mueller excuse away why he couldn't do the one thing you most expected him fo do, and just shrugged and said "okay"!? Mueller's "I can't accuse" argument is Byzantine logic at best and sophistry at worst.

But it goes deeper than that. Relevance is subjective to the individual, and relevance is what separates included signal from omitted noise in a factual account of events. That's the whole point behind the Sherlock Holmes stories — you have the normie account of the relevant details, full of red herrings irrelevant to the truth but made seemingly relevant by our common, socialized mode of thought, and then you have the eccentric who finds relevance in things others do not, things the normal people see but do not observe — that is, that they hold in their perception but fleetingly before discarding it as irrelevant. Even among the things we recall, we often consider it a waste of everyone's time to say everything we remember, because we doubt its relevance to the matter at hand and wish to keep the signal-to-noise ratio at a sufficiently high quality. No one ever lays all their cards on the table, TD, not ever; they only play what they consider to be their best.

I know the standard oath for swearing in a witness is to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that's an impossible oath: no one can tell the whole truth. They can just try to get as close as they can.

Mueller seems to be a straight shooter. It wasn't my speculation, he's the one that said the report was everything he had to say. I'm sure that congress will have him testify. When he does I suspect that he will do his best to stick to things he's already said in the report.