Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[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."

 

[Deleted member 365]

Makes ya think...

 

[Deleted member 365]

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.