Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment

[Morch]

13 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

right, so you think it would have been a different outcome then? 

 

I'm sure Russia's efforts had an effect on the elections results, yes. I'm not positive that it determined the outcome. Given the figures and margins involved, though, it's not something I'd ignore or rule as impossible.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

But but but....

 

 

Very creative there. So it's alright to make claims about the other side supposedly not accepting the election results, but not alright to show that this applied the other way around - even before the elections took place. Try harder.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

The election was decided by people voting their own choice, not by facebook ads.

 

you lost, you lost fair and square. get over it, come up with policies that are better

for the vast majority and you will win. 

 

keep trying to blame it on "russia" and you will lose AGAIN

 

People arrive at their decisions via all sort of ways. That's why politicians invest efforts and resources  in elections campaigns. You wish to claim Facebook ads and other social media posts aren't part of that? Go right ahead.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

I don't consider myself a Trump supporter, For sure it wasn't or isn't a mistake to support his agenda !I do agree with mostly everything on his agenda. I can honestly say I would support anybody who wasn't a politician and was for less Government intrusion in its citizens lives.

 

Could I support a dem,I use to until Barry's last term! Would I support another dem, no, to far left and radical! If a dem won the office, I wouldn't beat him like a red headed step child like the media never trumpers and liberal dems do everyday to Mr. Trump, just to gain power and continue divisiveness that caused the  MAGA movement to begin with! Just my opinion

 

"I don't consider myself a Trump supporter"

 

 

 

 

 

[attrayant]

13 minutes ago, Morch said:

10 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

The election was decided by people voting their own choice, not by facebook ads.

 

 

 

People arrive at their decisions via all sort of ways. That's why politicians invest efforts and resources  in elections campaigns. You wish to claim Facebook ads and other social media posts aren't part of that? Go right ahead.

 

Fudd doesn't seem to understand how marketing and targeted advertising work.  In another recent discussion he was trying to argue that it doesn't matter how many people are reached by a campaign, what really matters is what you say to the few people you DO reach.  

 

Sorry but in all advertising, it's quantity not quality that matters.  

[attrayant]

7 hours ago, riclag said:

I can honestly say I would support anybody who wasn't a politician

 

You support non-politicians to be elected into jobs that are inherently political?  That's morbidly fascinating.  Do you also support non-pilots flying airplanes and non-dentists drilling into teeth?

 

Edited June 8, 2019 by attrayant

[mogandave]

I have very high confidence that nothing nefarious was done by the FBI and (before Barr) the DOJ because I have confidence in the professionalism of the people in both organizations.  I also have confidence in Trump's lack of professionalism as well as his lack of honor, ethics, dignity, etc.
 
For this reason I'm sure the investigation of the investigators will be as unproductive as Trump's commission to find the millions of illegal voters.  Of course that doesn't mean Trump won't keep the nonsense going through the 2020 campaign and repeatedly claim they are finding unbelievable things. 

Well as long as you’re confident...

[mogandave]

 
Very creative there. So it's alright to make claims about the other side supposedly not accepting the election results, but not alright to show that this applied the other way around - even before the elections took place. Try harder.

I’ve not made such claim, nor did I say it was okay.

I make plenty of boneheaded comments, no point in making stuff up.

[mogandave]

 
You support non-politicians to be elected into jobs that are inherently political?  That's morbidly fascinating.  Do you also support non-pilots flying airplanes and non-dentists drilling into teeth?
 

The country is supposed to be governed by the people, but somewhere along the line it’s gotten to the point where people are getting rich in government and or after they get out.

The pilot analogy is ridiculous. A taxi driver would be much more accurate. One guys getting paid to drive, but most anyone could.

What was AOC, a bartender?

Is she unfit?

Exactly what skills you you have to have?

[Morch]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

I’ve not made such claim, nor did I say it was okay.

I make plenty of boneheaded comments, no point in making stuff up.

 

 

I think actually that was one of them. How about trying to follow posts and discussion before indulging?

[Chomper Higgot]

16 hours ago, riclag said:

Not nonsense ! The opinion author  is nonsensical . Until  law enforcement(real not retired ,working for news agencies) confirms Barr lied. It's all opinion,nice try

Hogwash.

 

Barr stated there were no more indictments coming from the Mueller investigation.

 

Then when he was forced to release a heavily redacted copy of the Mueller report we learn it contains 14 Indictments, 12 of which had never been reported (AKA New).

 

We then learn there is at least one ongoing Grand Jury, which can only have one purpose ‘examine the case for issuing an indictment’.

 

And lately when ordered by court to release documents relating to Flynn, the DoJ argue ‘investigative privilege’ ( Confirmation that there is another unreported investigation relating to Flynn).

 

Your claim that law enforcement need to confirm Barr lied is utter hogwash.

 

Barr lied, his written statements, recorded statements and the public record proves he lied.

 

Feel free to believe his lies if that’s less unsettling for you but don’t expect the rest of us to swallow that hogwash.

 

Away with you and your nonsense ‘law enforcement determines who lied’.

Edited June 8, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[mogandave]

Hogwash.
 
Barr stated there were no more indictments coming from the Mueller investigation.
 
Then when he was forced to release a heavily redacted copy of the Mueller report we learn it contains 14 Indictments, 12 of which had never been reported (AKA New).
 
We then learn there is at least one ongoing Grand Jury, which can only have one purpose ‘examine the case for issuing an indictment’.
 
And lately when ordered by court to release documents relating to Flynn, the DoJ argue ‘investigative privilege’ ( Confirmation that there is another unreported investigation relating to Flynn).
 
Your claim that law enforcement need to confirm Barr lied is utter hogwash.
 
Barr lies, his written statements, recorded statements and the public record proves he lied.
 
Away with you and your nonsense ‘law enforcement determines who lied’.
 
 

Who has not yet been indicted?

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

The country is supposed to be governed by the people, but somewhere along the line it’s gotten to the point where people are getting rich in government and or after they get out.

The pilot analogy is ridiculous. A taxi driver would be much more accurate. One guys getting paid to drive, but most anyone could.

What was AOC, a bartender?

Is she unfit?

Exactly what skills you you have to have?

Who are you referring to when you post "people are getting rich in government and or after they get out."?

 

AOC is not the President, she is a Representative.  She can do little damage in her job, she has to work with many others to get anything done.

 

The President is different, which is why the Founding Fathers wanted the Electoral College to insulate the Presidency from populist foolishness.  Originally members of the Electoral College were chosen by state legislatures in most states, and these members were allowed to vote for whoever they wanted to.  It was a way to insulate the most powerful single job in government from foolish whims of the masses.

 

The Founding Fathers also thought they had designed a system that would prevent two party politics, which they saw as destructive for democracy. 

 

Claiming the system was created for fools like Trump to be elected shows a lack of knowledge about US history.  The Founding Fathers would be appalled with our current election system and the man it elected.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎6‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 8:38 PM, heybruce said:

BTW, the US is a democratic republic, and can be legitimately referred to as either a democracy or a republic.  Only pretentious fools pull the "republic not a democracy" argument.

pretentious fools

 

Forum rules

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

[thaibeachlovers]

38 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Claiming the system was created for fools like Trump to be elected shows a lack of knowledge about US history. 

Do you not believe in "democracy" then? 

The great thing about the US, is that anyone can become president, even people that liberals don't like.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you not believe in "democracy" then? 

The great thing about the US, is that anyone can become president, even people that liberals don't like.Retiring to Europe (Portugal)

Of course I believe in democracy, which is why I think the popular vote should determine the President.

 

Any white male who inherited a fortune can become President.  It's not so easy for everyone else.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

pretentious fools

 

Forum rules

7) You will respect fellow members and post in a civil manner. No personal attacks, hateful or insulting towards other members, (flaming) Stalking of members on either the forum or via PM will not be allowed.

I used pretentious fools in a qualified manner.  By posting the words in an unqualified manner it appears you are directing the insult to all.  Please respect the forum rules.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

Of course I believe in democracy, which is why I think the popular vote should determine the President.

 

Any white male who inherited a fortune can become President.  It's not so easy for everyone else.

I'm amused you think more votes indicates actual popularity. Unless voting is compulsory, as in Australia, most if not all politicians are elected by a minority of potential voters.

I believe HRC was defeated because many Dem voters stayed at home as she was such a bad candidate, IMO.

 

BTW, the founding fathers included the electoral college to prevent states with large populations deciding the elections. They specifically excluded a popular vote for president. Wise men indeed.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I used pretentious fools in a qualified manner.  By posting the words in an unqualified manner it appears you are directing the insult to all.  Please respect the forum rules.

I took it as an insult to me. Please be careful of what you write if you mean something else. I don't know what is in your mind, only your words.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Who are you referring to when you post "people are getting rich in government and or after they get out."?

 

AOC is not the President, she is a Representative.  She can do little damage in her job, she has to work with many others to get anything done.

 

The President is different, which is why the Founding Fathers wanted the Electoral College to insulate the Presidency from populist foolishness.  Originally members of the Electoral College were chosen by state legislatures in most states, and these members were allowed to vote for whoever they wanted to.  It was a way to insulate the most powerful single job in government from foolish whims of the masses.

 

The Founding Fathers also thought they had designed a system that would prevent two party politics, which they saw as destructive for democracy. 

 

Claiming the system was created for fools like Trump to be elected shows a lack of knowledge about US history.  The Founding Fathers would be appalled with our current election system and the man it elected.

 

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm amused you think more votes indicates actual popularity. Unless voting is compulsory, as in Australia, most if not all politicians are elected by a minority of potential voters.

I believe HRC was defeated because many Dem voters stayed at home as she was such a bad candidate, IMO.

 

BTW, the founding fathers included the electoral college to prevent states with large populations deciding the elections. They specifically excluded a popular vote for president. Wise men indeed.

Apparently you don't believe in democracy.  I already addressed the electoral college nonsense in the post above.

 

Yes, many politicians are elected by a minority, but it should be the politician with the largest number of votes.  Or, better yet, implement a rank order voting system.

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I took it as an insult to me. Please be careful of what you write if you mean something else. I don't know what is in your mind, only your words.

You took it as an insult?  Are you one of those people who don't know that the US is a democratic republic?

[attrayant]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The great thing about the US, is that anyone can become president

 

 

This is a double-edged sword, because the obverse is also true: The worst thing about the US, is that anyone can become president. Hopefully nobody here needs a "for example" to support this. 

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

BTW, the founding fathers included the electoral college to prevent states with large populations deciding the elections.

 

And thus we get the present situation where candidates spend most of their time campaigning in large, heavily populated swing-states and almost no time in the small states that the EC supposedly "helps".

 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They specifically excluded a popular vote for president.

 

 

There is a bit more to the story. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist 68:

 

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

 

Hamilton was afraid a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.  The EC was supposed to act as a check on a mislead/misinformed electorate, and ensure that only a qualified person could assume the presidency.  Electors are supposed to exercise their independent judgement, not simply act as a mailman, mindlessly delivering the will public to the ballot box without further consideration.  Fast-forward to today: the EC has clearly failed its intended purpose of preventing tyrants from coming to power.

 

[mogandave]

Who are you referring to when you post "people are getting rich in government and or after they get out."?
 
AOC is not the President, she is a Representative.  She can do little damage in her job, she has to work with many others to get anything done.
 
The President is different, which is why the Founding Fathers wanted the Electoral College to insulate the Presidency from populist foolishness.  Originally members of the Electoral College were chosen by state legislatures in most states, and these members were allowed to vote for whoever they wanted to.  It was a way to insulate the most powerful single job in government from foolish whims of the masses.
 
The Founding Fathers also thought they had designed a system that would prevent two party politics, which they saw as destructive for democracy. 
 
Claiming the system was created for fools like Trump to be elected shows a lack of knowledge about US history.  The Founding Fathers would be appalled with our current election system and the man it elected.

Really?

1. The people that get rich in government or after the get out, I thought that was clear.

2. I don’t remember saying she was the President. If I did, it was a mistake.

3. The President is different from what? Trump is not the only President to not have held elected office. If the founders have wanted only politicians the would have said so.

4. Blah blah blah....

[Chomper Higgot]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Who has not yet been indicted?

 

What is it about ongoing investigations and ongoing Grand Juries that you don’t understand?

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Do you not believe in "democracy" then? 

The great thing about the US, is that anyone can become president, even people that liberals don't like.

With the help of a foreign power, yes you are correct.

Edited June 9, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[mogandave]

What is it about ongoing investigations and ongoing Grand Juries that you don’t understand?
 
 

I thought you said there were a number of people that hadn’t been indicted. I asked you: Who hasn’t been indicted?

What part of who hasn’t been indicted do you not understand?

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Really?

1. The people that get rich in government or after the get out, I thought that was clear.

2. I don’t remember saying she was the President. If I did, it was a mistake.

3. The President is different from what? Trump is not the only President to not have held elected office. If the founders have wanted only politicians the would have said so.

4. Blah blah blah....

 

Really?

 

"1. The people that get rich in government or after that get out, I thought that was clear."

 

No, it's not.  In other countries people enter government to get rich.  If that is true in the US, then you should give specific examples.

 

"2. I don’t remember saying she was the President. If I did, it was a mistake."

 

This is a topic about the US President.  If AOC is not relevant to the topic, then why did you her up?

 

"3. The President is different from what? Trump is not the only President to not have held elected office. If the founders have wanted only politicians the would have said"

 

The President is different in having so much power held in the hands of one person, unchecked other than constitutional checks given to other branches of government.  Was that not clear?  Do you oppose constitutional checks on power?

 

How many Presidents have not had any government or military experience before taking office? 

 

"4. Blah blah blah...."

 

Is that your best argument?

Edited June 9, 2019 by heybruce

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, elmrfudd said:

it is painfully obvious there was no legitimate reason for the investigation and there is nothing in it to get the result

you are so desperate for.

It is obvious to anyone who makes any attempt to stay informed that the Mueller investigation was necessary and productive. 

 

If you are stating that there is no legitimate reason for Trump's (and Fox news') "investigate the investigators" cries, then I agree.

[mogandave]

It is obvious to anyone who makes any attempt to stay informed...

The old “It’s obvious to anyone who makes any attempt to stay informed.” argument.

Strong

[Becker]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

The old “It’s obvious to anyone who makes any attempt to stay informed.” argument.

Strong

 

It's not an argument, it's a statement. Do try to keep up.