Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Robert Mueller submits Russia report


Recommended Posts

27 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Well there could be another Republican candidate if Republicans started to speak up and say that a President shouldn't act this way.  Shouldn't be vile, shouldn't be a bigot, etc., etc.  If Republicans voiced dissatisfaction with his absolute abhorant behaviour then it may give rise to a challenger.  But Republicans have abandoned their own morals by continuing to support Trump no matter what comes out about him.  Paying off porn stars?  Yup, he's the guy for us.  What a complete joke.

The bottom line here is that you're asking members of a political party that generally agree with the policy stances and 'direction' a President is taking the country to, due to character-issues,  not to support said President.    That wouldn't be very pragmatic or practical.  

Maybe in the 'good old days' members of a political party would have abandon a politician with such character-issues,  but those days ended with Bill Clinton.    When Dems,  especially women,  voted to re-elect him they were being pragmatic and practical.     (not that Clinton had 1\4 of the character-issues Trump has).   One can't expect Republicans do to otherwise. 

Note that Pelosi has been telling this to AOC:   don't attack our candidate even when they don't support your policies (E.g. the green-new-deal),  because having a Dem non-socialist-democratic President is better than having a Republican one,  especially Trump.

     

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jamesjazzguitar said:

The bottom line here is that you're asking members of a political party that generally agree with the policy stances and 'direction' a President is taking the country to, due to character-issues,  not to support said President.    That wouldn't be very pragmatic or practical.  

Maybe in the 'good old days' members of a political party would have abandon a politician with such character-issues,  but those days ended with Bill Clinton.    When Dems,  especially women,  voted to re-elect him they were being pragmatic and practical.     (not that Clinton had 1\4 of the character-issues Trump has).   One can't expect Republicans do to otherwise. 

Note that Pelosi has been telling this to AOC:   don't attack our candidate even when they don't support your policies (E.g. the green-new-deal),  because having a Dem non-socialist-democratic President is better than having a Republican one,  especially Trump.

     

 

 

 

but one cannot expect AOC to input logic.

:D

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The bottom line here is that you're asking members of a political party that generally agree with the policy stances and 'direction' a President is taking the country to, due to character-issues,  not to support said President.    That wouldn't be very pragmatic or practical.  

Maybe in the 'good old days' members of a political party would have abandon a politician with such character-issues,  but those days ended with Bill Clinton.    When Dems,  especially women,  voted to re-elect him they were being pragmatic and practical.     (not that Clinton had 1\4 of the character-issues Trump has).   One can't expect Republicans do to otherwise. 

Note that Pelosi has been telling this to AOC:   don't attack our candidate even when they don't support your policies (E.g. the green-new-deal),  because having a Dem non-socialist-democratic President is better than having a Republican one,  especially Trump.

     

 

 

 

Plus the neocon stooges like Bill Kristol already hopped on the #NeverTrump bandwagon long ago and did everything in their power to stop him. They just failed miserably.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NipkowDisc said:

but one cannot expect AOC to input logic.

:D

 

You could be right!    E.g. her openly saying she would work to primary-out Dems she felt were DINOs.   It is like she doesn't understand that she won a House district that had voted Dem in multiple prior elections (I believe 6),  and that she beat a white-man in the Primary (identity politics may have helped her more so then her policy stances). 

A candidate like her can't win the general election in a purple district that isn't identity politics driven. 

  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

The bottom line here is that you're asking members of a political party that generally agree with the policy stances and 'direction' a President is taking the country to, due to character-issues,  not to support said President.    That wouldn't be very pragmatic or practical.  

Maybe in the 'good old days' members of a political party would have abandon a politician with such character-issues,  but those days ended with Bill Clinton.    When Dems,  especially women,  voted to re-elect him they were being pragmatic and practical.     (not that Clinton had 1\4 of the character-issues Trump has).   One can't expect Republicans do to otherwise. 

Note that Pelosi has been telling this to AOC:   don't attack our candidate even when they don't support your policies (E.g. the green-new-deal),  because having a Dem non-socialist-democratic President is better than having a Republican one,  especially Trump.

Unfortunately I think everything you say is correct.  I don't think Trump will have the guts to do any debates.  Not with what we know about him now.  How could he possibly answer the accusations that he dodges right now.  Illegal payments to pay off a porn star?  Lying about Trump Tower.  Lying about everything.  Asking his staff to cut off aid to Puerto Rico?  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

Unfortunately I think everything you say is correct.  I don't think Trump will have the guts to do any debates.  Not with what we know about him now.  How could he possibly answer the accusations that he dodges right now.  Illegal payments to pay off a porn star?  Lying about Trump Tower.  Lying about everything.  Asking his staff to cut off aid to Puerto Rico?  

Yea,  it is unlikely Trump will do any debates.   Instead he will use Twitter to get his message out (with the MSM repeating his tweets over and over again).

The Dem candidate is highly likely to win all the states Clinton won so it will all come down to if the Dem can win a few of those mid-western states like Ohio,  Wisconsin, and Michigan and always too-close-to-call Florida.    I don't think running mostly a negative-Trump\identity politics campaign, can do so.

PS:  I wonder how much a candidate can use Twitter as a for-free campaign ad?   Doing so should be a campaign finance violation (or some type of campaign rule violation). 

  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mr6666 said:

The HillVerified account @thehill

 

Sen. Mitch McConnell:

"With regard to the Mueller report, there are two things the Attorney General will have to grapple with -- classified information and innocent people's reputations."

:rolleyes:

Now this is an interesting statement and like so many others how one interprets it is based on how partisan they are and which party they belong to.

Dems reads this as:  Mitch is providing cover for a major delay in releasing a highly redacted \ edited version of the report.   

Republican reads this as:  You see Mitch isn't going to try to block the report from being released.   He is telling us that the report will be released with the necessary minor edits,  with only a small delay.

  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

The HillVerified account @thehill

 

Sen. Mitch McConnell:

"With regard to the Mueller report, there are two things the Attorney General will have to grapple with -- classified information and innocent people's reputations."

:rolleyes:

Wait...I thought it was a "complete exoneration". How can a "complete exoneration" hurt "innocent people's reputations"? 

Maybe the P P tape is real. :wacko:

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Barr's Letter Exonerated American Journalism,

Not Donald Trump -

 

".....Two food fights in particular are dominating the media landscape: corporate media is fighting with Republican pundits inside the beltway and beyond, defending itself against accusations it jumped the gun in focusing so much on the Trump-Russia investigation; meanwhile, and partly as a way of taking the heat off itself, corporate media is lobbing grenades at independent citizen journalism, which it claims misread the public evidence of Trump’s guilt and over-promised what a federal criminal investigation into Trump’s clandestine activities would produce.

And as the media devolves into internecine conflict, Trump struts before banks of cameras declaiming that he has been fully exonerated of even a whiff of misconduct.

I’m here to say that everyone’s wrong.........

No prominent journalists said there was evidence of such before-the-fact agreements between Trump—or anyone in his orbit—and the IRA or GRU, probably because no such evidence ever entered the public sphere. ......

the media was so correct on obstruction that—while it couldn’t have predicted Mueller would take the extraordinary step of refusing to draw any conclusion on obstruction, despite it being his appointed responsibility—it correctly captured the push-and-pull of the obstruction case as to the sufficiency of the evidence. In so doing, it presaged the very struggle with the evidence that the Mueller Report apparently manifests. .............

Mueller appears to have farmed out these other possible collusion cases—the ones involving neither conspiracy nor “coordination” as Mueller defined it (in essence, as a conspiracy)—to other federal jurisdictions .......

 

in short, everyone should calm down. Trump continues to fabricate stories as he always has, and the media continues to be an imperfect but frequently accurate and admirable organ of public vigilance.

The state of the nation may be unstable, but it has nothing to do with media coverage of the ongoing Trump-Russia scandal. "

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-mueller-obstruction-barr-collusion-media-gop-1376863

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fxreyman said:

I probably should have rephrased my comment there Tom and I am sorry if I may have written something before I engaged my brain. I appreciate your comments , but again the main reason why I suggested that we end this discussion is that due to the strong feelings on both sides of this issue, we should all calm down (as John Wayne said in McLintock!).

giphy.gif

Wayne should have taken his own advice. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Is Normal Grieving, and What Are the Stages of Grief?

What Are the Stages of Grief?

Your feelings may happen in phases as you come to terms with your loss. You can’t control the process, but it’s helpful to know the reasons behind your feelings. Doctors have identified five common stages of grief:

  1.     Denial: When you first learn of a loss, it’s normal to think, “This isn’t happening.” You may feel shocked or numb. This is a temporary way to deal with the rush of overwhelming emotion. It’s a defense mechanism.
  2.     Anger: As reality sets in, you’re faced with the pain of your loss. You may feel frustrated and helpless. These feelings later turn into anger. You might direct it toward other people, a higher power, or life in general. To be angry with a loved one who died and left you alone is natural, too.
  3.     Bargaining: During this stage, you dwell on what you could’ve done to prevent the loss. Common thoughts are “If only…” and “What if…” You may also try to strike a deal with a higher power.
  4.     Depression: Sadness sets in as you begin to understand the loss and its effect on your life. Signs of depression include crying, sleep issues, and a decreased appetite. You may feel overwhelmed, regretful, and lonely.
  5.     Acceptance: In this final stage of grief, you accept the reality of your loss. It can’t be changed. Although you still feel sad, you’re able to start moving forward with your life.

Every person goes through these phases in his or her own way. You may go back and forth between them, or skip one or more stages altogether.

***********************************************************

After such a shocking outcome to so many with TDS, let's hope everyone gets to the Acceptance stage soon.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems demand Mueller’s full 300 pages,

mock ‘scaredy-cat’ GOP

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Trump-Russia report is more than 300 pages long, it was revealed Thursday, sparking fresh criticism from Democrats arguing that Attorney General William Barr’s four-page summary was gravely inadequate and the full findings must be quickly released.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Barr’s synopsis that cleared President Donald Trump of campaign collusion with Russia and criminal obstruction of the federal probe “condescending” and “arrogant.”

“Mr. Attorney General, we do not need your interpretation,” Pelosi said Thursday. “Show us the report and we’ll come to our own conclusions.” She mocked the administration and Republicans as “scaredy-cats.”

The length of Mueller’s confidential report makes clear that there are substantially more details he and his team have documented in their investigation than Barr disclosed to Congress and the public in his summary........

https://apnews.com/e9f3fb435dc04b4aaa9a2904ab476096?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump derangement syndrome

Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a neologism describing a reaction to United States President Donald Trump by liberals, progressives, and Never Trump neoconservatives, who are said to respond to Trump's statements and political actions irrationally and with little regard to Trump's actual position or action taken. The term has been used by pro-Trump supporters to discredit criticism of Trump's actions.

The origin of the term is traced to political columnist and commentator Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist, who originally coined the phrase Bush derangement syndrome in 2003 during the presidency of George W. Bush. That "syndrome" was defined by Krauthammer as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency – nay – the very existence of George W. Bush." The first use of the term 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' may have been Esther Goldberg in an August 2015 op-ed in The American Spectator; she applied the term to "Ruling Class Republicans" who are dismissive or contemptuous of Trump. Krauthammer, himself a harsh critic of Trump, later defined "Trump derangement syndrome" as a Trump-induced "general hysteria" among the chattering classes, producing an "inability to distinguish between legitimate policy differences and ... signs of psychic pathology" in the President's behavior.

In December 2016, Justin Raimondo divided the "syndrome" into three stages; in the first, those who "lose all sense of proportion"; next, they experience "a profound effect on ... vocabulary" and begin to "speak a distinctive language consisting solely of hyperbole"' and, in the final stage, the afflicted "lose the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality."

**************************************************

If only they remembered, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MovieMadness said:

Trump derangement syndrome

 

For a poster who constantly obsesses on these boards over Barack Obama, NASA, "global warming" and anything that has anything to do with Democrats it is really rich that you now like to post about people "afflicted" with TDS. Do you not appreciate the irony?

Is this your way of trying to conveniently dismiss criticisms of Trump with one broad brush stroke as some kind of mental health issue on the part of his accusers? I don't know if you think you're being very cute and clever with this line of counter-attack (you do this TDS posting quite often now). To me, it only further shows how difficult it must be for you to defend Trump so much of the time that you simply fall back on this hollow statement because it's easier for you than actually trying to muster a serious defence of his actions and behaviour.

Of course, it's also possible that you are merely trolling once again.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

JR, you'd really be lost without that laughing emoji, wouldn't you? Either that or you name call with massive invective. There's a lot of anger in you and these boards are where you partially release it. It's up to you to decide whether that's the proper way to deal with all that pent up anger you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mr6666 said:

Seth AbramsonVerified account @SethAbramson 1h1 hour ago

 

*BREAKING: THINGS WE JUST LEARNED* ✅ Mueller's summary of his file is ~400 pages long. ✅ The ~400 pages doesn't include appendices. ✅ Barr says his letter wasn't a summary. ✅ Trump won't claim executive privilege. ✅ Barr won't ask a judge to let him publish grand jury docs.

*BREAKING (CONTINUED): OTHER THINGS WE JUST LEARNED* ✅ Mueller's case-file summary contains some counterintelligence findings. ✅ "Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own." (Barr). ✅ Barr says he is willing to publicly testify to Congress on May 1-2 or after.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

*BREAKING (CONTINUED): OTHER THINGS WE JUST LEARNED* ✅ Mueller's case-file summary contains some counterintelligence findings. ✅ "Everyone will soon be able to read it on their own." (Barr). ✅ Barr says he is willing to publicly testify to Congress on May 1-2 or after.

BREAKING: ✅ Good news: Trump makes no privilege claims.

 

Bad news: Barr pretends publishing grand jury materials is illegal when in fact it just requires a court filing Barr refuses to make. ❌ Bad news: Barr plans redactions to protect reputations—which could mean anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...