Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[The Thriller]

No thanks...

LOL

Ok...

It’s pretty hilarious for some folks on this board claim that people are being partisan or lacking points because they highlight the partisanship of the trump administration. When you read the Barr memo from less than a year ago when he characterized this probe as a “witch hunt” and demanded an end to Mueller, can we really act surprised when this investigation ended the way it did? With the conclusions that Barr wrote up?

The summary essentially reads:

“There’s no collusion because Vlad and Donald didn’t directly plan collusion beyond a reasonable doubt. And since there’s no collusion, there can’t be any cover up or obstruction.”

- W. Barr

If we are to trust mueller then why shouldn’t we distrust Barr who was handpicked by trump to end this investigation?

 

[Gameface]

@The Thriller

I don't get being offended (especially not to the extent that it seems to have affected you) about being called a very partisan person.

You are. I mean do you want to deny it? And please, please, please, don't deny it with some claim that "it's not partisan if it's true" and then post a bunch of **** to prove that you're right so therefore not partisan. Please.

 

[The Thriller]

@The Thriller

I don't get being offended (especially not to the extent that it seems to have affected you) about being called a very partisan person.

You are. I mean do you want to deny it? And please, please, please, don't deny it with some claim that "it's not partisan if it's true" and then post a bunch of **** to prove that you're right so therefore not partisan. Please.

The way it’s typically used, especially on this site, is to dismiss one’s legitimate arguments.

My argument is simple:

Barr wrote less than a year ago about how this investigation was a witch hunt and needed to be ended.

This reportedly caught trump’s eye, which is why he was nominated in the first place.

The senate confirmation process has become a joke. Republicans merely rubber stamp whatever trump wants.

Barr’s conclusion of this investigation should be rejected and absolutely trigger house and senate committees to request testimony from both Mueller and Barr. The public should have access to Mueller’s report, not Barr’s tainted summary.

We really shouldn’t act surprised that Barr completes what he set out to do back last summer when he wrote his anti-Mueller diatribe. Lastly, patriots from both side of the aisle shouldn’t accept these conclusions. Rule of law depends on the AG acting accordingly, not promoting one team’s side, as Barr has done.

 

[Gameface]

The way it’s typically used, especially on this site, is to dismiss one’s legitimate arguments.

My argument is simple:

Barr wrote less than a year ago about how this investigation was a witch hunt and needed to be ended.

This reportedly caught trump’s eye, which is why he was nominated in the first place.

The senate confirmation process has become a joke. Republicans merely rubber stamp whatever trump wants.

Barr’s conclusion of this investigation should be rejected and absolutely trigger house and senate committees to request testimony from both Mueller and Barr. The public should have access to Mueller’s report, not Barr’s tainted summary.

We really shouldn’t act surprised that Barr completes what he set out to do back last summer when he wrote his anti-Mueller diatribe. Lastly, patriots from both side of the aisle shouldn’t accept these conclusions. Rule of law depends on the AG acting accordingly, not promoting one team’s side, as Barr has done.

lol, you had to. you just had to

 

[fishonjazz]

The way it’s typically used, especially on this site, is to dismiss one’s legitimate arguments.

My argument is simple:

Barr wrote less than a year ago about how this investigation was a witch hunt and needed to be ended.

This reportedly caught trump’s eye, which is why he was nominated in the first place.

The senate confirmation process has become a joke. Republicans merely rubber stamp whatever trump wants.

Barr’s conclusion of this investigation should be rejected and absolutely trigger house and senate committees to request testimony from both Mueller and Barr. The public should have access to Mueller’s report, not Barr’s tainted summary.

We really shouldn’t act surprised that Barr completes what he set out to do back last summer when he wrote his anti-Mueller diatribe. Lastly, patriots from both side of the aisle shouldn’t accept these conclusions. Rule of law depends on the AG acting accordingly, not promoting one team’s side, as Barr has done.

Are you partisan? Answer the simple question with a yes or a no please.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Alfalfa]

A lot of people want to see the actual report, and not just the conclusion of one biased observer. I doubt Barr misrepresented the report, but people in this very thread said they wouldn't accept the word of DoJ or even a heavily redacted report. The position is not that shockingly partisan.

 

[One Brow]

A lot of people want to see the actual report, and not just the conclusion of one biased observer. I doubt Barr misrepresented the report, but people in this very thread said they wouldn't accept the word of DoJ or even a heavily redacted report. The position is not that shockingly partisan.

I believe that Barr did not lie about the contents of the report. I have no doubt there is a decent amount of damage control in Barr's summary.

 

[Gameface]

A lot of people want to see the actual report, and not just the conclusion of one biased observer. I doubt Barr misrepresented the report, but people in this very thread said they wouldn't accept the word of DoJ or even a heavily redacted report. The position is not that shockingly partisan.

I'm not calling Thriller partisan for any single position he's taken. I call him that because he is ridiculously "Rah-rah, go Dems! Beat the evil Republicans! Once the Dems win everything is going to be better!"

Not sure why he tries to even argue about it.

I'm a Jazz homer. That doesn't mean that when I say "Gobert is good at defense" I'm wrong. This has nothing to do with him being right or wrong. It has to do with his ability to engage in an honest and/or meaningful discussion with people who disagree with him.

 

[Alfalfa]

I'm not calling Thriller partisan for any single position he's taken. I call him that because he is ridiculously "Rah-rah, go Dems! Beat the evil Republicans! Once the Dems win everything is going to be better!"

Not sure why he tries to even argue about it.

I'm a Jazz homer. That doesn't mean that when I say "Gobert is good at defense" I'm wrong. This has nothing to do with him being right or wrong. It has to do with his ability to engage in an honest and/or meaningful discussion with people who disagree with him.

I understand. He does have that reputation. I personally think he's better than a lot of posters with no such reputation. At least he's generally well informed. /Shrug

In this case, we need to see the actual report. This is coming from a person who's always doubted there was anything to the story. It's just been too long a wait for a few sentence summary by a Trumper.

 

[Red]

Trump 2.0?



"There's a lot of people out there that have done some very, very evil things, very bad things," Mr Trump said, "I would say treasonous things, against our country."

"And hopefully people that have done such harm to our country, we've gone through a period of really bad things happening.

"Those people will certainly be looked at, I've been looking at them for a long time.

"And I'm saying, 'why haven't they been looked at?' They lied to Congress - many of them, you know who they are - they've' done so many evil things."

 

[The Thriller]

Makes ya think...

 

[The Thriller]

Here’s some questions I’d like to ask mueller and Barr:

1. Why didn’t you release the full report and let congress and the public decide whether to impeach? Why did the trump appointed AG weigh in? We all know he was appointed to serve trump. We all know that he was against this probe by what he wrote in July last year. How can the public trust that the right decision was made when Trump’s tainted AG usurped the special counsels/Congress’s role?

2. Claiming that because the SC couldn’t find evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that trump colluded therefore he couldn’t have obstructed justice is absurd. People are tried and convicted of obstruction of justice by Justin tampering with the investigation. Just because trump did it in broad daylight doesn’t mean he didn’t attempt to derail this investigation.

3a. Why didn’t Mueller interview Trump? Truly, I’m at a loss for this. Did he read trump refusing and then creating a constitutional crisis by risking a subpoena of the president? It seems to me that this shoudve been done.

3b. If innocent, why didn’t trump interview with Mueller?

4. If innocent, why is Trump currently claiming that he’s been exonerated and fighting against the release of the full report?

5. For those interested in how liberals view this whole thing, listen to the pod save America podcast from today. Those interested in how (smart) conservatives view this, listen to The Bulwark with Charlie Sykes. I listen to both on the regular and I thought they had some great discussions about this. You might be surprised how similar they are on this

 

[Gameface]

I understand. He does have that reputation. I personally think he's better than a lot of posters with no such reputation. At least he's generally well informed. /Shrug

In this case, we need to see the actual report. This is coming from a person who's always doubted there was anything to the story. It's just been too long a wait for a few sentence summary by a Trumper.

I had an epiphany when I was in elementary school.

I've never liked milk. I'm actually lactose intolerant but it was the 80s and even though that was a thing then I didn't know that when I was very young. Plus, I really didn't like the taste, maybe that was a developed aversion due to the massive stomach cramps too much dairy would give me.

Anyway, it caused a lot of drama in little Bulletproof's life. At school we were served milk and we had a lunchroom monitor that was determined to make sure we drank our milk. I argued with her a lot and did a lot of stuff to get rid of my milk and tried to get to the trash cans before she could intercept me so I could dump my milk. So I started not just not liking milk, I started kind of really hating milk.

So, I didn't like milk. I'd get into arguments with other kids and I'd tell then that milk wasn't really all that good for them. They really reacted strongly to this. Like I hated milk and now they hated me for hating milk. But it didn't matter to me, I was going to talk **** about milk any chance I got, and I'd even try to find extra chances to express how much I didn't like milk.

So that went on for years. I was always a little surprised by how aggressively people would defend milk.

Then, in one of the arguments I had the epiphany. The other kid said "My parents told me milk was good for me."

So I wasn't having an argument about milk. I was having an argument about weather or not his parents we liars. I was calling his parents liars.

I filed that one away and I always tried from that point forward to determine if I was having a "milk" argument or an argument about the facts. I have over the course of my life, with limited success, tried to find ways to erase the line in the sand when I am arguing with someone. I try to get in a real argument and not a "milk" argument. That starts by being careful not to insult the other person, or things the other person cares about, or even core assumptions they've made that tie into their opinion on the matter you're discussing with them. It's not easy and sometimes I just say **** it and just argue.

But The Thriller can be as informed as he wants to be. He can be right a lot of the time. He can have good reasons for why he feels the way he does. But he always starts by saying my worldview is right and yours is stupid, so he only ever has "milk" arguments. And that's never going to get him anywhere.

 

[Alfalfa]

I had an epiphany when I was in elementary school.

I've never liked milk. I'm actually lactose intolerant but it was the 80s and even though that was a thing then I didn't know that when I was very young. Plus, I really didn't like the taste, maybe that was a developed aversion due to the massive stomach cramps too much dairy would give me.

Anyway, it caused a lot of drama in little Bulletproof's life. At school we were served milk and we had a lunchroom monitor that was determined to make sure we drank our milk. I argued with her a lot and did a lot of stuff to get rid of my milk and tried to get to the trash cans before she could intercept me so I could dump my milk. So I started not just not liking milk, I started kind of really hating milk.

So, I didn't like milk. I'd get into arguments with other kids and I'd tell then that milk wasn't really all that good for them. They really reacted strongly to this. Like I hated milk and now they hated me for hating milk. But it didn't matter to me, I was going to talk **** about milk any chance I got, and I'd even try to find extra chances to express how much I didn't like milk.

So that went on for years. I was always a little surprised by how aggressively people would defend milk.

Then, in one of the arguments I had the epiphany. The other kid said "My parents told me milk was good for me."

So I wasn't having an argument about milk. I was having an argument about weather or not his parents we liars. I was calling his parents liars.

I filed that one away and I always tried from that point forward to determine if I was having a "milk" argument or an argument about the facts. I have over the course of my life, with limited success, tried to find ways to erase the line in the sand when I am arguing with someone. I try to get in a real argument and not a "milk" argument. That starts by being careful not to insult the other person, or things the other person cares about, or even core assumptions they've made that tie into their opinion on the matter you're discussing with them. It's not easy and sometimes I just say **** it and just argue.

But The Thriller can be as informed as he wants to be. He can be right a lot of the time. He can have good reasons for why he feels the way he does. But he always starts by saying my worldview is right and yours is stupid, so he only ever has "milk" arguments. And that's never going to get him anywhere.

Good story. Although I'm not entirely sure about the moral. You're saying you should've been more tactful in your attack on milk? Or that it's not an argument you should've made in the first place?

 

[Gameface]

Good story. Although I'm not entirely sure about the moral. You're saying you should've been more tactful in your attack on milk? Or that it's not an argument you should've made in the first place?

Well, both.

The moral of the story is that The Thriller can be right, but the way he's arguing is wrong.

I think I've told the milk story here before (it's a real story) but this time I tried to tie it into my feelings about Trump. Did any of that come through?

 

[Alfalfa]

Well, both.

The moral of the story is that The Thriller can be right, but the way he's arguing is wrong.

I think I've told the milk story here before (it's a real story) but this time I tried to tie it into my feelings about Trump. Did any of that come through?

Children are generally socialized through their parents. That includes politics and ideology. I think "milk" is as valid an argument as any. As for tactfulness, I don't know if it's specially effective. It might be. But some of the people who had the most impact on my thinking were neither tactful nor nice about it. But I suppose it depends on the kind of discussion and the type of person.

But being tactful and not getting into heated arguments would preserve one's own sanity. So there's that.

And milk is great btw.

 

[Gameface]

Children are generally socialized through their parents. That includes politics and ideology. I think "milk" is as valid an argument as any. As for tactfulness, I don't know if it's specially effective. It might be. But some of the people who had the most impact on my thinking were neither tactful nor nice about it. But I suppose it depends on the kind of discussion and the type of person.

But being tactful and not getting into heated arguments would preserve one's own sanity. So there's that.

And milk is great btw.

Are you making milk great again?

Barf!

 

[fishonjazz]

I too love milk. But I try to drink it in moderation since it costs more than water and isn't as healthy as water. So I drink 90% water, 7% milk (that's some fat *** milk lol) and 3% other.

Oh **** I forgot alcohol. I'm gonna have to start over.....

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[The Thriller]

Interesting.

Trump world is arguing both that:

A. The Mueller probe exonerated Trump.
B. The Mueller probe was an unethical witch hunt.

Which... it can’t be both. Trumpworld claiming both is just gaslighting America to the point where we don’t care what actually happened anymore but that we just want it to go away.

Something else of note: McConnell just blocked Schumer’s vote to make the report public.

@Bulletproof tell me again why we shouldn’t vote straight party democrat these days

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, the basic lesson is that you need to understand the person you're arguing with beyond the discussion you're having. If you put them on the defensive they are likely yo ignore the majority of what you say. You have to find a way to talk to them in their vernacular. You have to give credibility to the things they believe that will ultimately help you make the point you're trying to make. If you are able to find that common ground, open that door, you can do a lot more with a lot less.

I'm sure in academic environments people are challenged head-on a lot more. That's part of the process. That approach doesn't work as well in the break room as it does the lecture hall, or amongst people actively exploring ideas for the sake of understanding. Most people aren't doing that. Most people come in with their armor on and their sword poised, because they are pretty sure they are going to "win" the argument. They lead with their best series of moves and parry the predicted responses. Then both sides sit there looking at each other. Neither side scored a point.

There's a way beyond that, and it is to express a sincere understanding of where they are coming from and validating their base assumptions, then expressing why a conclusion based on those assumptions is contradictory to the core of their beliefs. That's how you score points. That's how you change minds.