(03-09-2018 01:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ya know, if he pulls this off, it will make it harder for the Democrats to say he is unfit, stupid, a Russian puppet, ignorant, ineffective, yada, yada, yada. I think they will depend on the blind pig saying.

IF it happens.

Trump could cure cancer and the left would still focus on Russian collusion.

(03-12-2018 03:21 PM)Clad Scheme Owl Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 01:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ya know, if he pulls this off, it will make it harder for the Democrats to say he is unfit, stupid, a Russian puppet, ignorant, ineffective, yada, yada, yada. I think they will depend on the blind pig saying.

IF it happens.

Trump could cure cancer and the left would still focus on Russian collusion.

He could cure cancer and he would still be called all the names they call him now.

There was no collusion, but it is a convenient way to explain how Hillary lost.

(03-12-2018 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:21 PM)Clad Scheme Owl Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 01:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ya know, if he pulls this off, it will make it harder for the Democrats to say he is unfit, stupid, a Russian puppet, ignorant, ineffective, yada, yada, yada. I think they will depend on the blind pig saying.

IF it happens.

Trump could cure cancer and the left would still focus on Russian collusion.

He could cure cancer and he would still be called all the names they call him now.

There was no collusion, but it is a convenient way to explain how Hillary lost.

Spoiler alert: He won't be curing cancer.

It is laughably inconsistent to say you have all the evidence you need to declare the Mueller investigation a witch hunt and a nothingburger but to counsel a judicious "wait and see" approach to whether Donald J. Trump is indeed just the man to solve possibly the world's thorniest and most pressing geopolitical issue. One would think, after 15 months, we might just have enough evidence to make confident predictions on that one as well.

I say all of the above as a card-carrying Republican. You do not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool MSNBC partisan to find Trump "unfit, stupid, ignorant, ineffective." I doubt he's "a Russian puppet" but that doesn't mean he's not their useful idiot, and anyway, since he stood on a stage and asked Russia to get Hillary's emails, I'm fine with the cops conducting a collusion investigation and letting the chips fall where they may.

(03-12-2018 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:21 PM)Clad Scheme Owl Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 01:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ya know, if he pulls this off, it will make it harder for the Democrats to say he is unfit, stupid, a Russian puppet, ignorant, ineffective, yada, yada, yada. I think they will depend on the blind pig saying.
IF it happens.

Trump could cure cancer and the left would still focus on Russian collusion.

He could cure cancer and he would still be called all the names they call him now.
There was no collusion, but it is a convenient way to explain how Hillary lost.

Spoiler alert: He won't be curing cancer.
It is laughably inconsistent to say you have all the evidence you need to declare the Mueller investigation a witch hunt and a nothingburger but to counsel a judicious "wait and see" approach to whether Donald J. Trump is indeed just the man to solve possibly the world's thorniest and most pressing geopolitical issue. One would think, after 15 months, we might just have enough evidence to make confident predictions on that one as well.
I say all of the above as a card-carrying Republican. You do not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool MSNBC partisan to find Trump "unfit, stupid, ignorant, ineffective." I doubt he's "a Russian puppet" but that doesn't mean he's not their useful idiot, and anyway, since he stood on a stage and asked Russia to get Hillary's emails, I'm fine with the cops conducting a collusion investigation and letting the chips fall where they may.

I guess one of the problems I have with all this is that I just don’t see standing on the stage and asking Russia to get Hillary’s emails (which is taking some liberty in characterizing what Trump actually said) as evidence of any collusion (which is not a crime) nor conspiracy (which is).

I see electing a president as hiring someone for a job. If he does the job I want done, I’m happy. If not, I’m not. I was pretty happy with Trump’s first year, except I wish they had replaced Obamacare with Bismarck. But when he gets into immigration and trade wars, I’m not as happy.

I could care less about Russian collusion. My main issues with Trump are his tweets, his insults and some of his policies (but not all). I also don't think he's hired anywhere near 'the best of the best'. DeVos on 60 Minutes last night proved that.

(03-12-2018 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:21 PM)Clad Scheme Owl Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 01:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ya know, if he pulls this off, it will make it harder for the Democrats to say he is unfit, stupid, a Russian puppet, ignorant, ineffective, yada, yada, yada. I think they will depend on the blind pig saying.

IF it happens.

Trump could cure cancer and the left would still focus on Russian collusion.

He could cure cancer and he would still be called all the names they call him now.

There was no collusion, but it is a convenient way to explain how Hillary lost.

Spoiler alert: He won't be curing cancer.

It is laughably inconsistent to say you have all the evidence you need to declare the Mueller investigation a witch hunt and a nothingburger but to counsel a judicious "wait and see" approach to whether Donald J. Trump is indeed just the man to solve possibly the world's thorniest and most pressing geopolitical issue. One would think, after 15 months, we might just have enough evidence to make confident predictions on that one as well.

I say all of the above as a card-carrying Republican. You do not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool MSNBC partisan to find Trump "unfit, stupid, ignorant, ineffective." I doubt he's "a Russian puppet" but that doesn't mean he's not their useful idiot, and anyway, since he stood on a stage and asked Russia to get Hillary's emails, I'm fine with the cops conducting a collusion investigation and letting the chips fall where they may.

So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.

I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.

Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.

And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

(03-12-2018 07:56 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could care less about Russian collusion. My main issues with Trump are his tweets, his insults and some of his policies (but not all). I also don't think he's hired anywhere near 'the best of the best'. DeVos on 60 Minutes last night proved that.

The DeVos confirmation was a perfect example of how not all of the nominations the Dems opposed were born from complete obstructionism. DeVos has no business being Secretary of Education, and yet there she is. Her 60 Minutes interview didn’t shed light on anything new that her confirmation hearing didn’t expose.

(03-12-2018 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:21 PM)Clad Scheme Owl Wrote:  

(03-09-2018 01:48 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Ya know, if he pulls this off, it will make it harder for the Democrats to say he is unfit, stupid, a Russian puppet, ignorant, ineffective, yada, yada, yada. I think they will depend on the blind pig saying.

IF it happens.

Trump could cure cancer and the left would still focus on Russian collusion.

He could cure cancer and he would still be called all the names they call him now.

There was no collusion, but it is a convenient way to explain how Hillary lost.

Spoiler alert: He won't be curing cancer.

It is laughably inconsistent to say you have all the evidence you need to declare the Mueller investigation a witch hunt and a nothingburger but to counsel a judicious "wait and see" approach to whether Donald J. Trump is indeed just the man to solve possibly the world's thorniest and most pressing geopolitical issue. One would think, after 15 months, we might just have enough evidence to make confident predictions on that one as well.

I say all of the above as a card-carrying Republican. You do not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool MSNBC partisan to find Trump "unfit, stupid, ignorant, ineffective." I doubt he's "a Russian puppet" but that doesn't mean he's not their useful idiot, and anyway, since he stood on a stage and asked Russia to get Hillary's emails, I'm fine with the cops conducting a collusion investigation and letting the chips fall where they may.

So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.

I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.

Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.

And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).

Tillerson out, to be replaced by Pompeo:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/...smsnnews11

(03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.
I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.
Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.
And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).

So on the basis that a candidate and campaign that were constantly making disparaging remarks about all opponents, and basically lived off those remarks, made a statement that bad news was going to come out about Hillary constitutes reasonable grounds for conducting a lengthy and costly investigation into possible collusion? Well, good, at least we know where you stand.

At the time the comment was made, I thought it was just Trump running his mouth again. I still don't see it as much more than that. Certainly not evidence of any sort of criminal conspiracy.

That is the big difference that I see between this and Watergate. There you had a clear crime--the break-in--from the beginning. You had the fire and the investigation was about following the smoke. Here you have a few wisps of what might be smoke or what might be something else, leading to an exhaustive and so far non-productive search for what surely must be a raging fire somewhere. The only "evidence" we have that there even was a Russian hack is the statements of the intel chiefs, none of whom has had access to the only piece of hard evidence--the servers themselves. What they had are intelligence estimates based on the fact that certain procedures followed were consistent with Russian hacks. And if intelligence estimates were accurate, the Normandy invaders would have found the Wehrmacht waiting for them, instead of off to the east where German intel told them the invasion was going to take place.

Abd for the record, I'm not a republican--they are too soft and wishy washy and "democrat light" for me--and did not vote for Trump. I will go further and say that I pretty much liked his first year, but I disagree on immigration policy and trade wars, so I'm not looking forward to year two. But if he pulls off something with North Korea and trade wars don't tank the economy, we could very well be looking at eight years of him.

(03-13-2018 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:56 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could care less about Russian collusion. My main issues with Trump are his tweets, his insults and some of his policies (but not all). I also don't think he's hired anywhere near 'the best of the best'. DeVos on 60 Minutes last night proved that.

The DeVos confirmation was a perfect example of how not all of the nominations the Dems opposed were born from complete obstructionism. DeVos has no business being Secretary of Education, and yet there she is. Her 60 Minutes interview didn’t shed light on anything new that her confirmation hearing didn’t expose.

Why shouldn't she be? I can see disagreement with her on policies, but the fact that she advocates a different approach from one that is clearly not working does not seem to me to be a reason why she has no business there. Maybe it is the exact reason why she should be there.

(03-13-2018 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:56 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could care less about Russian collusion. My main issues with Trump are his tweets, his insults and some of his policies (but not all). I also don't think he's hired anywhere near 'the best of the best'. DeVos on 60 Minutes last night proved that.

The DeVos confirmation was a perfect example of how not all of the nominations the Dems opposed were born from complete obstructionism. DeVos has no business being Secretary of Education, and yet there she is. Her 60 Minutes interview didn’t shed light on anything new that her confirmation hearing didn’t expose.

Why shouldn't she be? I can see disagreement with her on policies, but the fact that she advocates a different approach from one that is clearly not working does not seem to me to be a reason why she has no business there. Maybe it is the exact reason why she should be there.

Have you seen her confirmation hearing or the 60 Minutes interview?

(03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 03:21 PM)Clad Scheme Owl Wrote:  Trump could cure cancer and the left would still focus on Russian collusion.

He could cure cancer and he would still be called all the names they call him now.

There was no collusion, but it is a convenient way to explain how Hillary lost.

Spoiler alert: He won't be curing cancer.

It is laughably inconsistent to say you have all the evidence you need to declare the Mueller investigation a witch hunt and a nothingburger but to counsel a judicious "wait and see" approach to whether Donald J. Trump is indeed just the man to solve possibly the world's thorniest and most pressing geopolitical issue. One would think, after 15 months, we might just have enough evidence to make confident predictions on that one as well.

I say all of the above as a card-carrying Republican. You do not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool MSNBC partisan to find Trump "unfit, stupid, ignorant, ineffective." I doubt he's "a Russian puppet" but that doesn't mean he's not their useful idiot, and anyway, since he stood on a stage and asked Russia to get Hillary's emails, I'm fine with the cops conducting a collusion investigation and letting the chips fall where they may.

So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.

I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.

Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.

And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).

so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.

Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.

If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.

I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.

Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.

I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?

(03-13-2018 09:53 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.
I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.
Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.
And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).

So on the basis that a candidate and campaign that were constantly making disparaging remarks about all opponents, and basically lived off those remarks, made a statement that bad news was going to come out about Hillary constitutes reasonable grounds for conducting a lengthy and costly investigation into possible collusion? Well, good, at least we know where you stand.

At the time the comment was made, I thought it was just Trump running his mouth again. I still don't see it as much more than that. Certainly not evidence of any sort of criminal conspiracy.

That is the big difference that I see between this and Watergate. There you had a clear crime--the break-in--from the beginning. You had the fire and the investigation was about following the smoke. Here you have a few wisps of what might be smoke or what might be something else, leading to an exhaustive and so far non-productive search for what surely must be a raging fire somewhere. The only "evidence" we have that there even was a Russian hack is the statements of the intel chiefs, none of whom has had access to the only piece of hard evidence--the servers themselves. What they had are intelligence estimates based on the fact that certain procedures followed were consistent with Russian hacks. And if intelligence estimates were accurate, the Normandy invaders would have found the Wehrmacht waiting for them, instead of off to the east where German intel told them the invasion was going to take place.

Abd for the record, I'm not a republican--they are too soft and wishy washy and "democrat light" for me--and did not vote for Trump. I will go further and say that I pretty much liked his first year, but I disagree on immigration policy and trade wars, so I'm not looking forward to year two. But if he pulls off something with North Korea and trade wars don't tank the economy, we could very well be looking at eight years of him.

I was talking about the conversations Papadopoulos was having when drunk at a bar, or the DM conversations that Trump Jr. had with Wikileaks, or even Roger Stone's announcement of forthcoming email dumps.

I was not talking about Trump making a joke on TV - I was talking about evidence that indicates an investigation is justified.

(03-13-2018 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 04:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  He could cure cancer and he would still be called all the names they call him now.

There was no collusion, but it is a convenient way to explain how Hillary lost.

Spoiler alert: He won't be curing cancer.

It is laughably inconsistent to say you have all the evidence you need to declare the Mueller investigation a witch hunt and a nothingburger but to counsel a judicious "wait and see" approach to whether Donald J. Trump is indeed just the man to solve possibly the world's thorniest and most pressing geopolitical issue. One would think, after 15 months, we might just have enough evidence to make confident predictions on that one as well.

I say all of the above as a card-carrying Republican. You do not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool MSNBC partisan to find Trump "unfit, stupid, ignorant, ineffective." I doubt he's "a Russian puppet" but that doesn't mean he's not their useful idiot, and anyway, since he stood on a stage and asked Russia to get Hillary's emails, I'm fine with the cops conducting a collusion investigation and letting the chips fall where they may.

So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.

I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.

Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.

And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).

so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.

Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.

If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.

I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.

Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.

I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?

Hahahaahahahahahahah

Yeah, your opinion on whether or not there is a narrative that makes sense really holds a lot of weight to me. At least you tried.

(03-13-2018 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 05:17 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  Spoiler alert: He won't be curing cancer.

It is laughably inconsistent to say you have all the evidence you need to declare the Mueller investigation a witch hunt and a nothingburger but to counsel a judicious "wait and see" approach to whether Donald J. Trump is indeed just the man to solve possibly the world's thorniest and most pressing geopolitical issue. One would think, after 15 months, we might just have enough evidence to make confident predictions on that one as well.

I say all of the above as a card-carrying Republican. You do not have to be a dyed-in-the-wool MSNBC partisan to find Trump "unfit, stupid, ignorant, ineffective." I doubt he's "a Russian puppet" but that doesn't mean he's not their useful idiot, and anyway, since he stood on a stage and asked Russia to get Hillary's emails, I'm fine with the cops conducting a collusion investigation and letting the chips fall where they may.

So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.

I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.

Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.

And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).

so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.

Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.

If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.

I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.

Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.

I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?

Hahahaahahahahahahah

Yeah, your opinion on whether or not there is a narrative that makes sense really holds a lot of weight to me. At least you tried.

Dodging the challenge.

Always hard to talk logic with true believing conspiracy theorists. Might as well try to convince an Idaho militiaman that the government is NOT coming to take their guns.

What do you think of my last paragraph?

(03-13-2018 11:45 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 11:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 07:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 11:56 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So you think criticizing 15 months of an investigation that has no logical basis and no results means I should jump one way or the other immediately on hearing unprecedented news.

I don't know if Trump can pull this off. To be honest, I doubt it. But if he does, it will be harder to demean him as a president, no matter how much you dislike him personally. Ergo, my statement above.

Spoiler alert: Curing cancer was not meant literally. Duh.

And I am not a card carrying Republican, nor did I vote for Trump.

The investigation has a logical basis - just because you disagree with it does not make it illogical. Members of the Trump campaign were aware of the DNC email hacks before the emails were released - and it seems perfectly logical to investigate whether or not there was cooperation between the Trump campaign and those responsible for the hacks (Russia).

so you think a deal was reached months before Trump even had the nomination for Russia to steal and publish the emails without editing in return for...what? Who was the genius that realized that publishing that Donna Brazile cheated for Hillary would turn Wisconsin red? and why did they decide to pass their communications over handshakes at state dinners.

Well, a lot of people believe that the world was created in six days. Because they choose to believe.

If I am on a grand jury, this is a no bill. If I am on a petit jury, this is a not guilty. You just cannot come in in and tell me he worked with the russians because one of his employees had suspicious deals with them years ago and he slept with a hooker and he is mean and rude. (stamp foot) Does not pass the sniff test.

I think the ones that it passes the sniff test for are the ones who think Trump stinks.

Lad, alone among the throng on your side, including the thoughtful people here and the ones burning dumpsters, you tried to make a narrative that made sense. You failed, but you tried. Can you rebuild that here again? Trace the evolution of the conspiracy. Give us the quid pro quo. Explain how Trump knew months before the election, before the nomination even, that all he needed was to publish Hillary's yoga schedule. If he did, smart man.

I think we could investigate the First Baptist Church of Dallas or Rice University for collusion with Mars, and come up with a list of OOJ and money laundering charges. Do you disagree?

Hahahaahahahahahahah

Yeah, your opinion on whether or not there is a narrative that makes sense really holds a lot of weight to me. At least you tried.

Dodging the challenge.

Always hard to talk logic with true believing conspiracy theorists. Might as well try to convince an Idaho militiaman that the government is NOT coming to take their guns.

What do you think of my last paragraph?

I'm not dodging - I've just done this song and dance with you for the past year and a half, and the needle hasn't moved. I've provided you with evidence of why the investigation isn't illogical, yet you just refuse to see logic in it. That's why I laughed.

I mean, let's do something really easy and LOGICAL. Assume the pee tape is real. All of a sudden, Putin has leverage over Trump. Putin could then say, let us help you get elected so you can, in return, not criticize me (Trump hasn't), not ratchet up sanctions (Trump still hasn't done that, despite them passing Congress), and push our interests (RNC changed their stance on Ukraine).

There is LOGIC there - whether it is plausible and likely is another story (mainly because I brought up the pee tape). I can think of plenty other logical reasons for why the Russian investigation is still on going, but you will fail to see logic in every one of them. I promise you that.

(03-13-2018 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:56 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could care less about Russian collusion. My main issues with Trump are his tweets, his insults and some of his policies (but not all). I also don't think he's hired anywhere near 'the best of the best'. DeVos on 60 Minutes last night proved that.

The DeVos confirmation was a perfect example of how not all of the nominations the Dems opposed were born from complete obstructionism. DeVos has no business being Secretary of Education, and yet there she is. Her 60 Minutes interview didn’t shed light on anything new that her confirmation hearing didn’t expose.

Why shouldn't she be? I can see disagreement with her on policies, but the fact that she advocates a different approach from one that is clearly not working does not seem to me to be a reason why she has no business there. Maybe it is the exact reason why she should be there.

Have you seen her confirmation hearing or the 60 Minutes interview?

Yep. She pretty much flunked the standard bureaucratese questions. She doesn't know things that we would expect a typical bureaucrat to know.

As long as she was not appointed to be another typical bureaucrat, what difference does that make? Do I wish she knew the answers to those questions? Hell yes, but given her mission, they don't strike me as disqualifying.

(03-13-2018 01:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm not dodging - I've just done this song and dance with you for the past year and a half, and the needle hasn't moved. I've provided you with evidence of why the investigation isn't illogical, yet you just refuse to see logic in it. That's why I laughed.
I mean, let's do something really easy and LOGICAL. Assume the pee tape is real. All of a sudden, Putin has leverage over Trump. Putin could then say, let us help you get elected so you can, in return, not criticize me (Trump hasn't), not ratchet up sanctions (Trump still hasn't done that, despite them passing Congress), and push our interests (RNC changed their stance on Ukraine).
There is LOGIC there - whether it is plausible and likely is another story (mainly because I brought up the pee tape). I can think of plenty other logical reasons for why the Russian investigation is still on going, but you will fail to see logic in every one of them. I promise you that.

But here's the project with that LOGIC and all of the LOGICAL arguments. They all depend on significant "if" clauses. And none of the if's have been substantiated in over a year of thorough investigation.

If there is a pee pee tape. What if there isn't?
If "the Russians" hacked the DNC. What if they didn't?
If "the Russians" conspired with Trump to hack the election. What if they didn't?

Let's establish a proper predicate before leaping to hypothetical conclusions.

That's the difference between this and Watergate. There we clearly had a crime before starting to investigate. Here we don't. The needle hasn't moved because there has been nothing to move it.

(03-13-2018 01:41 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 11:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-13-2018 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(03-12-2018 07:56 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I could care less about Russian collusion. My main issues with Trump are his tweets, his insults and some of his policies (but not all). I also don't think he's hired anywhere near 'the best of the best'. DeVos on 60 Minutes last night proved that.

The DeVos confirmation was a perfect example of how not all of the nominations the Dems opposed were born from complete obstructionism. DeVos has no business being Secretary of Education, and yet there she is. Her 60 Minutes interview didn’t shed light on anything new that her confirmation hearing didn’t expose.

Why shouldn't she be? I can see disagreement with her on policies, but the fact that she advocates a different approach from one that is clearly not working does not seem to me to be a reason why she has no business there. Maybe it is the exact reason why she should be there.

Have you seen her confirmation hearing or the 60 Minutes interview?

Yep. She pretty much flunked the standard bureaucratese questions. She doesn't know things that we would expect a typical bureaucrat to know.

As long as she was not appointed to be another typical bureaucrat, what difference does that make? Do I wish she knew the answers to those questions? Hell yes, but given her mission, they don't strike me as disqualifying.

She flunked a question on proficiency vs growth when judging student progress. How doesn’t that have anything to do with bureaucrats???