Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
kellyb said:
Totally. He's an actor, and what's he's doing is really, really immoral.

I think Megyn Kelly was often just acting, too, when she was on Fox, but she had the basic human decency to get the hell out and stop promoting and legitimizing conservative nuttery. In the last year or so she was there, sometimes she'd rebel, all out of the blue, and say very sane, very liberal things, much to the apparent chagrin of her co-hosts who would look at her like she'd grown a second head. It was really funny.

Hannity is the real deal. I kind of wish they'd give him a chalkboard so he could start drawing charts linking George Soros to the Muslim Brotherhood like Beck used to do. Watching Beck was greatly entertaining while it lasted.
Click to expand...

Hannity is beyond a doubt the worst and most dishonest person on television. He's as immoral as they come and he's intellectually vapid. He's trying to replace O'Reilly who was actually something of an intellectual. O'Reilly was always a major jerk but he was never stupid. Hannity is a jerk and has the IQ of a moron.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
O'Reilly could be really stupid if it involved Christianity in any way.
Click to expand...

That's true. I saw him interview Richard Dawkins and he made the vapid argument that until we can prove a God doesn't exist he's going to keep believing. I have no respect for that type of thinking.
 
acbytesla said:
That's true. I saw him interview Richard Dawkins and he made the vapid argument that until we can prove a God doesn't exist he's going to keep believing. I have no respect for that type of thinking.
Click to expand...

O'Reilly also once (famously) said, "Tide goes in, Tide goes out. You can't explain that!"
 
acbytesla said:
That's true. I saw him interview Richard Dawkins and he made the vapid argument that until we can prove a God doesn't exist he's going to keep believing. I have no respect for that type of thinking.
Click to expand...


O'Reilly also can't prove that flying unicorns don't exist, for much the same reasons.

I guess we can safely assume he also believes in flying unicorns.
 
varwoche said:
This strongly implies that you're promoting "deep state" and "17 angry democrats" conspiracy theories. By all means, correct me if I'm misinterpreting.

Already debunked (Clinton) although you blithely waved it off. Add the Watergate investigation as an example that contradicts your claim.

More 17 angry democrats JAQ off.

This doesn't cut it, especially now in the age of "people are saying". Please cite examples.


Yes. The body of evidence is so vast that it's a major task to summarize. In brief, I base this on the likelihood that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian operatives. After all, we know for a fact that the Trump team (1) knowingly attempted to obtain illegally obtained Clinton dirt from Russian operatives and (2) had foreknowledge of the hacking.

Don't know. It might be hard to prove. I imagine that this sort of conspiracy would involve more nudges/winks than written contracts.

It might give Hannity and Carlson something to bray about for a few days. Critical thinkers on the other hand will be mindful that the content is cherry-picked.

Clearly.
Click to expand...

Thank you for asking for correction on your assumptions. I've not made up my mind yet, because certain key evidence is still being stonewalled. We should see some cherry picked portions soon. I may have an opinion on outcome of this in another month or two. Until then, you can label me as undecided and waiting on more evidence.
 
kellyb said:
Yep, although the difference between agnostics and atheists is often mostly more a matter of semantics.
Click to expand...

I think that agnostics are just atheists who are too afraid to take that last step. At least that's been my experience with them. And I was one of them for a few years.
 
Stacyhs said:
I think that agnostics are just atheists who are too afraid to take that last step. At least that's been my experience with them. And I was one of them for a few years.
Click to expand...


I once had a discussion with an Oxford mathematician about the biggest problem in logic and reasoning... and the biggest problem is language. Language is not math. It cannot be defined precisely. It has shades of meaning depending on the listener/reader and their experiences with the words. It is a most imperfect way to communicate (and yet it is all we really have..absent some AI overlords).

And to stay on topic...I think there is no collusion that will be found in a way for prosecution of Trump to proceed. All charges so far are unrelated or tertiary... at best. If they have something in the inner scope, they need to pee or get off the pot asap. Presidencies are timely endeavors.
 
Manafort struck a plea deal Friday with prosecutors that requires him to “cooperate fully, truthfully, completely, and forthrightly” with investigators “in any and all matters as to which the government deems the cooperation relevant.” That includes being fully debriefed by prosecutors, handing over any relevant documents, testifying at any proceedings and even participating in undercover activities.
Click to expand...

Mueller is obviously going to send Manafort back into the Trump orbit, most likely disguised with a fake mustache.
 
Sherkeu said:
I once had a discussion with an Oxford mathematician about the biggest problem in logic and reasoning... and the biggest problem is language. Language is not math. It cannot be defined precisely. It has shades of meaning depending on the listener/reader and their experiences with the words. It is a most imperfect way to communicate (and yet it is all we really have..absent some AI overlords).

And to stay on topic...I think there is no collusion that will be found in a way for prosecution of Trump to proceed. All charges so far are unrelated or tertiary... at best. If they have something in the inner scope, they need to pee or get off the pot asap. Presidencies are timely endeavors.
Click to expand...

I'd have thought you would have seen the importance of a thourough investigation. After all, the very important investigations into Clintons affairs took years, and the Benghazi investigations (all twelve or so) span for quite a number of years as well. I didn't see many "conservatives" leaping to demand that Trey Gowdy "pee or get off the pot" back then. Why is it different now?

Well, except for the fact that Muller has produced a whole slew of indictments.
 
The Mueller Investigation is massively stacked in favor of Trump: it is run by a Republican, who was selected by Republicans, is overseen by a Republican at the DOJ with Republicans in control of Congress and the White House.
How can anyone credibly claim that this is plot by the Democrats?
only Trump and those who parrot him.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
The Mueller Investigation is massively stacked in favor of Trump: it is run by a Republican, who was selected by Republicans, is overseen by a Republican at the DOJ with Republicans in control of Congress and the White House.
How can anyone credibly claim that this is plot by the Democrats?
only Trump and those who parrot him.
Click to expand...

Ah, but you see... there's this DEEP STATE of unseen Democrats (i.e. pedophiles!) who are manipulating everything from behind the scenes.
 
Sherkeu said:
If they have something in the inner scope, they need to pee or get off the pot asap.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They need to ensure that any case they plan to bring is air tight.

Many commentators, including federal prosecutors and former officials, have remarked on how amazingly quickly Mueller is moving for a case this large and complex.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom