The Mueller Report

[oxmixmudd]

Presumably because you couldn't convincingly respond to the rest.

Again with the dishonesty - I addressed that directly in the portion of the post you cut out. Again - gaslight much? You do realize that people that do that regularly tend to be sociopaths - right?

As for your other 'facts', I have already addressed them multiple times, and your response has been to simply ignore my responses and repeat them again and again and again ... as if they have meaning, and as if no response had been given. In fact, the post I made which you responded to in fact also addressed them directly, and yet what do you do? Just repeat your talking points again mindlessly, as if they have meaning.

Tell me, if Mueller's report is as damning as you and the Democrats claim it is then why are they bothering with the theatrics of questioning Barr instead of immediately filing for impeachment with Mueller's report as their key piece of evidence? Well, I think the answer is pretty obvious, don't you?

Why yes, it is obvous. It is because in addition to an AG that will sacrifice his integrity on the alter of Trump, the Senate which is in his other pocket will do likewise when it comes to actually acting on any success related to impeachment coming out of congress, and both houses must act.


Jim

[Mountain Man]

Why yes, it is obvous. It is because in addition to an AG that will sacrifice his integrity on the alter of Trump, the Senate which is in his other pocket will do likewise when it comes to actually acting on any success related to impeachment coming out of congress, and both houses must act.

Barr has no say in impeachment hearings, so that's one red herring filleted.

Second, what is your basis for the claim that Senate Republicans would refuse to take action if there was clear evidence that the President broke the law? Indeed, if such evidence existed then yesterday was the time for Senate Democrats to have their Perry Mason moment while questioning Barr, but instead they fumbled around like sitcom characters without the laugh-track.

[Bill the Cat]

... sacrifice his integrity on the alter of Trump

Capture.JPG

[The Pendragon]

Says the unobjective Cat.

The fact I disagree with many of you does not necessarily mean I'm not objective Bill. The fact I am passionate about not allowing ones political inclinations to cause one to compromise ones personal morality is also not an indication I am not objective in my evaluation of these issues. To show examples of us not being objective, you need to show where we consistently did not yield to the facts. That is incredibly easy for to do as relates you and MM. All I have to do is go back to the bonkers conversation about the inauguration crowd where I put up detailed analysis of the photos in question and mathematics to define the apparent discrepancies and showed objectively there was no room for the inane theories of MM on that event, and yet not once, never did he acknowledge the simple facts (and neither did most participating in that thread)

You will not find that same sort of absolute capacity to never yield to the simple facts in my posts. Ergo, by comparison (never vs sometimes), I am significantly more objective than MM.

I will admit MM is an easy target, as NEVER is sort of like divide by infinity in this case. Doesn't matter much objectivity I might lack, compared to him, I'm objective. e.g 1,000,000/oo = 0.




Jim

oxmixmudd,
Is there any thing good you can point to that Trump did right or good?

If you can't see the good in a person and only judge them negatively, you are not objective.

To put it in prospective, I do not believe Trump is a saint, but he's not the devil incarnate either, He is crude, bombastic, He over blows things to make his point, and he is prideful. But can you say that you are any better.

Trump was not my first choose for President, He was way down the list. I do not like a lot about Trump and can't tell you weather he's a Christian or not, But he uphold my Christian values for the most part he does what he says he'll do. He supports Israel, which is a big change from the previous administration. He supports my Conservative views.
He has "Made America Great" again.

Bottom line Trump is good for America.

None of us are a paragon of virtue. We all have our moral lapses. If you where in the news every day with the Press only reporting the lies and miss deeds in you life without giving your accomplishments or the good thing s you do, How would you fare? How would people view you?

[oxmixmudd]

Barr has no say in impeachment hearings, so that's one red herring filleted.

Second, what is your basis for the claim that Senate Republicans would refuse to take action if there was clear evidence that the President broke the law? Indeed, if such evidence existed then yesterday was the time for Senate Democrats to have their Perry Mason moment while questioning Barr, but instead they fumbled around like sitcom characters without the laugh-track.

You, as usual, read into my words what is not there. I made no reference of any kind as to what the AG's relationship to impeachment is. I refer here to the obvious, his interference in the evaluation of the mueller report and his attempts to control the initial impressions of its conclusions, knowing that once said Trumpians like yourself would hear nothing else. Further, since he does have say in what is or is not considerred criminal where the law is subject to interpretation, so he most certainly does have an indirect but not insignificant impact on impeachment. So consider you rebuttal felleted, twice over

As for the rest, Barr was taken to task but simply refused to answer the questions that would incriminate the president.

Jim

[Mountain Man]

Senator Grassley sets a reporter straight about Mueller's letter ("[Mueller] was only concerned about how the media played [the report]") and then tells her:

"Here's where we are: the Democrats, and you folks in the media, are not concerned about the report, I think what you're concerned about is that the results are not what you expected. And I think you're finding out that everybody was sold a bunch of snake oil, and now the jig's up."

Then he simply turns and walks away! Only thing that would have made it better is if he had a mic to drop.

[Bill the Cat]

As for the rest, Barr was taken to task but simply refused to answer the questions that would incriminate the president.

Jim

Show me 3 direct quotes where he was "taken to task". I'll wait.

[Mountain Man]

I refer here to the obvious, [Barr's] interference in the evaluation of the mueller report and his attempts to control the initial impressions of its conclusions...

Are you referring to his summary which Mueller emphasized was neither inaccurate nor misleading? Yeah, I can see why that's a problem.

[Sparko]

Ox and MM, can you two please cut back on the personal jabs and innuendos?

Thanks.

[One Bad Pig]

Says the unobjective Cat.

The fact I disagree with many of you does not necessarily mean I'm not objective Bill.

This is true. However, the rest of your post abundantly proves his point.

The fact I am passionate about not allowing ones political inclinations to cause one to compromise ones personal morality is also not an indication I am not objective in my evaluation of these issues. To show examples of us not being objective, you need to show where we consistently did not yield to the facts. That is incredibly easy for to do as relates you and MM. All I have to do is go back to the bonkers conversation about the inauguration crowd where I put up detailed analysis of the photos in question and mathematics to define the apparent discrepancies and showed objectively there was no room for the inane theories of MM on that event, and yet not once, never did he acknowledge the simple facts (and neither did most participating in that thread)

You will not find that same sort of absolute capacity to never yield to the simple facts in my posts. Ergo, by comparison (never vs sometimes), I am significantly more objective than MM.

I will admit MM is an easy target, as NEVER is sort of like divide by infinity in this case. Doesn't matter much objectivity I might lack, compared to him, I'm objective. e.g 1,000,000/oo = 0.




Jim

The language you use here is hardly objective, Jim. You follow up a protest that disagreement does not mean lack of objectivity with a litany of reasons why those who disagree with you are... not objective. You can do better, right? I don't imagine that I'm going to cause you to indulge in any introspection, for the simple reason that I tend to disagree with you in this forum (and therefore my unobjective opinion can safely be dismissed), but I can always hope.

[RumTumTugger]

oxmixmudd,
Is there any thing good you can point to that Trump did right or good?

This needs an answer from you oxmixmudd. Can you think of anything positive or are you only looking for the negative in Trump, if you are only looking only for the negative then as The Pendragon said you are not being objective with regard to Trump.

[One Bad Pig]

This needs an answer from you oxmixmudd. Can you think of anything positive or are you only looking for the negative in Trump, if you are only looking only for the negative then as The Pendragon said you are not being objective with regard to Trump.

He's responded affirmatively to this challenge before, though it's been awhile now.

[oxmixmudd]

This is true. However, the rest of your post abundantly proves his point.

The language you use here is hardly objective, Jim. You follow up a protest that disagreement does not mean lack of objectivity with a litany of reasons why those who disagree with you are... not objective. You can do better, right? I don't imagine that I'm going to cause you to indulge in any introspection, for the simple reason that I tend to disagree with you in this forum (and therefore my unobjective opinion can safely be dismissed), but I can always hope.

Unfortunately, your analysis of my reply is a clear indication of your own incapacity for objectivity OBP. But it does appear we both feel the same way about the 'other side' of the argument. I have yet to see, even one time, a person that has begun hammering on how bad I am as a person actually show even the smallest hint they are aware that they may themselves share some part in the problem.


Jim

[One Bad Pig]

Unfortunately, your analysis of my reply is a clear indication of your own incapacity for objectivity OBP.

How so? Give me an objective analysis of my reply.

But it does appear we both feel the same way about the 'other side' of the argument. I have yet to see, even one time, a person that has begun hammering on how bad I am as a person actually show even the smallest hint they are aware that they may themselves share some part in the problem.

Jim

Oh, I can hardly claim true objectivity here; I merely aspire to it. Political discussions tend to be the very antithesis of objective; this is true of all sides in a typical debate. I don't recall "hammering on how bad you are as a person" however, so perhaps you're not referring to me in that regard.

[oxmixmudd]

He's responded affirmatively to this challenge before, though it's been awhile now.

To be fair, there is little discussed in this forum that is focused on what Trump is doing that is objectively good. So part of the bias you see is that almost all of the conversation here focuses on elements of Trumps presidency that in many cases are objectively bad and have thus stirred up controversy.

But notice how I responded to the thread about the insanity in Canada as regards their GSA policies and implications as regards hormone injections in minors w/o parental consent. Is that a response in line with 'liberal' ideologies? So let us suppose Trump came out against such practices in a reasoned, practical way. I would be for that. Or just consider the fact Trump has a strong Pro-Israel position - which I support. He also is very solidly behind the military and making sure we give them the resources they need. Again, I support that. And I am glad that he is trying to do something about lax immigration, except that HOW he has approached the problem is so over the top contrary to morality and principle that I can't be thankful for what he has done there and often am forced (by principle) to speak against it, even though I think previous administrations and policy have been far, far too lax.

It is not that Trump is 'all bad' in terms of policy. It is that he explicitly rejects many of the norms that make civilization function. And that is dangerous. But IF some thread were to be started that discussed some Trump initiative that I supported, I would be able to say "I support that". And in fact, I have, in addition to affirming that there are things Trump is doing right, also been behind the discussion about various elements of previous administration's where they have been clearly wrong.

My positions on political matters are all based on policy and moral values, not personality. The reason I seem so much against Trump is that he violates those moral principles and policies so often and in ways I see as anything but trivial in terms of its impact on our country and it's place in the world.

Jim