Circling The Arguments (SCO thread v. 32)

[LangfordBarrow]

Okay I still don't understand what's going on with this.

I really don't. There are two aspects of which I'm aware that seem to indicate a possible contradiction:
1) Investigation came back saying no collusion.
2) A large number of indictments, several of which have resulted in plea deals.

I'm not saying these two things are mutually exclusive but they certainly seem that way.

Someone shed some light on this for me.

It came back as saying there was no conspiracy. Mueller did not make a determination on obstruction, instead leaving it to "others", who some want it to be Barr and others Congress. I don't think Mueller has made a public statement on the matter yet.

 

[JamesRussler]

This thread is still going? It’s like an internet monument to failure.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Trump has been completely vindicated...

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

And a troll is someone who continues to argue something that has been clearly proved wrong.

You, nor anyone else in this thread has proven a single one of my arguments wrong.

You're just angry that reality isn't conforming to your delusions.

In regards to the Russian collusion conspiracy hoax, were you legitimately deceived by it, or did you simply want to believe it?

 

[Andy Capp]

LOL trolls gonna troll.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

LOL trolls gonna troll.

I accept your concession.

If you had better arguments, you wouldn't need the insults.

 

[JamesRussler]

LOL trolls gonna troll.

At what point will you accept that Trump won because Democrats have jumped the shark?

 

[andnowweknow]

At what point will you accept that Trump won because Democrats have jumped the shark?

My guess is

a.) when the report is released

b.) it says Trump is cleared

Shouldn't be too long before things heat up again.

 

[JamesRussler]

My guess is

a.) when the report is released

b.) it says Trump is cleared

Shouldn't be too long before things heat up again.

Seriously, if the report is released, and it shows no credible evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016 (i.e., nothing more than uncorroborated allegations or innuendo), will you admit that you were wrong? I don’t expect you to suddenly support Trump, but this story is embarrassing. It’s like BJ Penn’s career—you should have hung it up a long time ago, but you keep coming back for more punishment. Just stop.

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

What is it that people like about Trump, exactly?

He calls people funny names and his daughter has big tits.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I wonder how long before Mueller and Barr are under investigation for collusion with Trumps campaign, or maybe even Russia itself.

When that turns out not to happen, will that lead you to conclude that your model is wrong?

 

[Andy Capp]

At what point will you accept that Trump won because Democrats have jumped the shark?

Maybe right after Trump supporters accept that "because it triggers the libs" is a morally indefensible and unpatriotic reason for voting in a dirtbag like Trump.

 

[JamesRussler]

Maybe right after Trump supporters accept that "because it triggers the libs" is a morally indefensible and unpatriotic reason for voting in a dirtbag like Trump.

That’s just a hilarious byproduct of voting our consciences.

 

[Darkballs]

President Trump has been completely vindicated.

In a report that says, in no uncertain terms, that the evidence "does not exonerate him [the president]".

Swing and a derp.

 

[BarryDillon]

And lets not forget Trumps own "links" and "coordination" with Russia now we know he was pursing massive finance deals and personal enrichment to the tune of hundreds of millions for Trump Tower Moscow.

Even if all the Russia "links" and "coordination" that has been proven does not rise to the level a prosecutor thinks he could get a conviction on it, as intent is almost impossible to prove without some leaked statement, there was no reason for all these people around Trump and himself to lie other than they thought that, in a very close election, it could maybe cost them votes with some traditional Anti-Russia republicans if they found out.

so they held it back to try and sway the election. That is something only Congress can look at and determine what action needs to be taken as it is grossly unethical at best.

It's also difficult to prove intent when you can't even question the target of the investigation.

 

[andnowweknow]

Seriously, if the report is released, and it shows no credible evidence that Trump colluded with Russia to win in 2016 (i.e., nothing more than uncorroborated allegations or innuendo), will you admit that you were wrong? I don’t expect you to suddenly support Trump, but this story is embarrassing. It’s like BJ Penn’s career—you should have hung it up a long time ago, but you keep coming back for more punishment. Just stop.

If it says he did nothing wrong, of course I'll go along with that narrative. Mueller's direct account should be gospel on the matter.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

That’s just a hilarious byproduct of voting our consciences.

Voting your fears more like it.

 

[LangfordBarrow]

If it says he did nothing wrong, of course I'll go along with that narrative. Mueller's direct account should be gospel on the matter.

Gospel He's a conflicted Republican covering up for The Prez, this is a SHAM. SAD!

 

[CrazyN8]

When that turns out not to happen, will that lead you to conclude that your model is wrong?

So lets say I had a model like you speak of, would one instance of it being incorrect prove the whole thing is fasle? Not very scientific of you Jacky. Plus it was more of a joke, but I honesty wouldn't be suprisee, a lot of the media turned to the Barr and Mueller are probably in on it narrative with the quickness.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

In a report that says, in no uncertain terms, that the evidence "does not exonerate him [the president]".

Swing and a derp.

Prosecutors don't exonerate, they either indict or not.

Guess which one Muller decided to do........