Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
I still don't get it. :(
Click to expand...


Welch:
Noun

welch (plural welches)

  1. A person who defaults on an obligation, especially a small one. She's a welch. That watering-can isn't hers: I lent it to her three years ago.
Verb

welch (third-person singular simple present welches, present participle welching, simple past and past participle welched)

  1. To fail to repay a small debt.
  2. To fail to fulfill an obligation.




and...




41DUOEGxiKL.jpg
 
AnonyMoose said:
Welch:
Noun

welch (plural welches)

  1. A person who defaults on an obligation, especially a small one. She's a welch. That watering-can isn't hers: I lent it to her three years ago.
Verb

welch (third-person singular simple present welches, present participle welching, simple past and past participle welched)

  1. To fail to repay a small debt.
  2. To fail to fulfill an obligation.




and...




[qimg]https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41DUOEGxiKL.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

OOOOoooooooh! Ok, now I get it.
 
Belz... said:
Crazy how our principles are tested by whether something would be advantageous to us or not, right?
Click to expand...
;)


Well, according to Trump-fans, all that Mueller will show is that Trump is completely innocent, which would give Republicans a massive boost in the Midterms.
 
Belz... said:
Crazy how our principles are tested by whether something would be advantageous to us or not, right?
Click to expand...

While I generally agree with your point, I think there's a strong argument that different kinds of information may warrant different treatment.

The issue with Comet speaking about Clinton was that the actual facts of the release (that the of was combing through a new set of emails) were not particularly incriminating, but their timing allowed them to be spun as damming.

If the FBI were holding onto information which were actually incriminating I could see an argument that voters should have it.

If, for example, before the election, they had a strong case that Clinton was conspiring with Russia to undermine the election, perhaps voters should be informed.

Such a release could only be a positive thing if the process were previously formalized enough to minimize accusation s of partisan interference, so it wouldn't apply this year even if they had something so damming. But in the abstract I can see a case for them having that ability.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
;)


Well, according to Trump-fans, all that Mueller will show is that Trump is completely innocent, which would give Republicans a massive boost in the Midterms.
Click to expand...

Well here are my predictions

a. If Mueller's investigation is unable to show that Trump was involved in any conspiracy to affect the 2016 election, Trump and his devoted sycophants will crow about it from every street corner until the cows come home

b. If Mueller's investigation does actually show that Trump was involved in a conspiracy to affect the 2016 election, Trump and his sycophants will scream "Deep State Liberal conspiracy" from the rooftops.

....and you can take that to the bank.
 
smartcooky said:
Well here are my predictions

a. If Mueller's investigation is unable to show that Trump was involved in any conspiracy to affect the 2016 election, Trump and his devoted sycophants will crow about it from every street corner until the cows come home

b. If Mueller's investigation does actually show that Trump was involved in a conspiracy to affect the 2016 election, Trump and his sycophants will scream "Deep State Liberal conspiracy" from the rooftops.

....and you can take that to the bank.
Click to expand...


"Donald Trump is not going to be President of the United States. Take it to the bank, I guarantee it.”

-- Nancy Pelosi (May 16, 2016)
 
I'm reminded of the Jabba thread and Jabba's continue insistence that there was this unseen jury of "neutral" people judging the debate and declaring him the winner.

It really does seem like a vast majority of people in political discussion are debating as if at some arbitrary point in the future a whistle is going to blow and some heretofore unforeseen panel of judges is going to step out, tally up all the points scored and hills died defending for no reason, and ropes each side wouldn't drop their end of and declare one side the "Winner" based on that.

To call it treating the debate as if it is something can be won or lost would be doing it a disservice. This is worrying about making sure your fantasy football political team's point spread doesn't drop below a certain percentage.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I'm reminded of the Jabba thread and Jabba's continue insistence that there was this unseen jury of "neutral" people judging the debate and declaring him the winner.

It really does seem like a vast majority of people in political discussion are debating as if at some arbitrary point in the future a whistle is going to blow and some heretofore unforeseen panel of judges is going to step out, tally up all the points scored and hills died defending for no reason, and ropes each side wouldn't drop their end of and declare one side the "Winner" based on that.
Click to expand...

"On the right/wrong side of history".
 
AnonyMoose said:
Welch:
Noun

welch (plural welches)

  1. A person who defaults on an obligation, especially a small one. She's a welch. That watering-can isn't hers: I lent it to her three years ago.
Verb

welch (third-person singular simple present welches, present participle welching, simple past and past participle welched)

  1. To fail to repay a small debt.
  2. To fail to fulfill an obligation.
.....
Click to expand...


Nobody got the reference because the correct term is "welsh."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/welsh?s=t
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom