(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html

foreign meddling

How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?

Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?

Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.

To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.

(04-23-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html

foreign meddling

How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?

Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?

Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.

To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.

Assuming for argument that everything you say is true, how does this differ from Clinton/Ukraine?

Ok, now let's talk about what you said.

What actions by Trump are you talking about? I want specifics, not innuendo or supposition.

Here's what I hang MY hat on. The investigation was into collusion.
All we have heard from the left side of the fence for two years is collusion. Mueller found no collusion. Those are facts. He didn't say, as Comey did, that the facts would not prove beyond a resonable doubt. He said no evidence of collusion was found.

The facts and evidence that you and the rest of them are talking about are mostly conjecture and innuendo. So start listing some facts that show collusion.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is what is needed for conviction. Indictment is a much lower bar. I sat on a grand jury. Our job to was to decide if there was enough evidence to warrant a trial. NOT if the charges were provable beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT, if you think it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it follows that all your doubts are not reasonable.

It seems to me your side is muttering "I KNOW he is guilty, I just can't prove it. Stupid laws. Stupid Constitution."

(04-23-2019 02:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.

Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?

But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html

foreign meddling

How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?

Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?

Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.

To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.

Assuming for argument that everything you say is true, how does this differ from Clinton/Ukraine?

Ok, now let's talk about what you said.

What actions by Trump are you talking about? I want specifics, not innuendo or supposition.

Here's what I hang MY hat on. The investigation was into collusion.
All we have heard from the left side of the fence for two years is collusion. Mueller found no collusion. Those are facts. He didn't say, as Comey did, that the facts would not prove beyond a resonable doubt. He said no evidence of collusion was found.

The facts and evidence that you and the rest of them are talking about are mostly conjecture and innuendo. So start listing some facts that show collusion.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is what is needed for conviction. Indictment is a much lower bar. I sat on a grand jury. Our job to was to decide if there was enough evidence to warrant a trial. NOT if the charges were provable beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT, if you think it could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then it follows that all your doubts are not reasonable.

It seems to me your side is muttering "I KNOW he is guilty, I just can't prove it. Stupid laws. Stupid Constitution."

So, no facts?

(04-23-2019 02:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-23-2019 01:10 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:So all the “fake news” was true. A hostile foreign power intervened in the presidential election, hoping to install Donald Trump in the White House. The Trump campaign was aware of this intervention and welcomed it. And once in power, Trump tried to block any inquiry into what happened.
Never mind attempts to spin this story as somehow not meeting some definitions of collusion or obstruction of justice. The fact is that the occupant of the White House betrayed his country. And the question everyone is asking is, what will Democrats do about it?
But notice that the question is only about Democrats. Everyone (correctly) takes it as a given that Republicans will do nothing. Why?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/opini...party.html

foreign meddling
How is this different? What are you gong to do about it?
Why do you think a liberal economist knows more about collusion than a former Attorney General of the US?
Three questions - I wonder how many you will answer. Best guess: zero.

To the question about the Attorney General, do you know if they feel that Trump's actions were a betrayal? Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.
The question of betrayal in the context above isn't legal.

Krugman is a lying political hack sack of ****. He has leveraged his Nobel into claimed status as a pseudo-expert about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the subject matter of his Nobel.

So, to what moral and ethical issues do you refer?

Neither Lad nor AtEase will respond with any specifics.

Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

Why do you expect that from a whack a troll?

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

Why do you expect that from a whack a troll?

It was rhetorical. He does not want to compare to the Clinton/Ukrainian collusion.

Lad might respond. But he might not. Depends on his mood and his work. But I noticed he was posting in the transgender thread taking potshots at you while ignoring my request.

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

I AM less knee-jerk anti-Republican than he and others would like. Also less knee-jerk pro-Republican asthey think. It's not that I think Republicans are great: I just think they are better than the alternative, generally speaking.

I did not vote for Trump in 2016, either in the primary or the general. I most certainly will in 2020, now that he has a proven track record. All the hysterical finger pointing in the world does not affect my life, but his economic and foreign policy actions do, and in a positive way. I think Democrats want me to hurt. If anybody wants to push Grandpa off a cliff, it s them. I am Grandpa. The view from the wheelchair is bit different.

It would be different if any of their complaints were real and/or reasonable. But it is all about bad jokes, bragging, and imaginary collusion. They were ready to accept the results of the 2016 election, as long as it went as expected to their dream. But it didn't. They were ready to accept the results of the Mueller investigation, as long as it condemned Trump as a traitor. But it didn't. I said two years ago no collusion would be found. it was crazy and irrational. I was right. But they continue to fight for their dream. guess we are in for six more years of this, and then on January 20, 2025, president AOC will ask her Attorney General to file charges against him, before she gets to the business of wrecking the country, as "getting" Trump is the whole raison d'etre for Democrats now. He has become their white whale. (Pun intended)

(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?

(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 08:11 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 12:14 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Heh.... asking AtEase to respond, let alone respond with any specifics..... rofl

That privileged coward? Not a chance.

I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

I dont think my position on AtEase is much of a soapbox, lad. Bad hair day or somefink?

(04-24-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:07 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know nothing of AE except that in 2008 he did engage in discussion with me and now he is a hit-and-run poster. However, his straight ticket Democrat attitude seems the same.

Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?

You kind of implied that Tanq should get off his soap box. On the Quad.

I must have missed it when Tanq criticized your soap box.

You sure are touchy lately. Is it because Mueller found no collusion? Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

You ready with the moral and ethical issues you referenced?*

*Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

Be sure to tie those moral and ethical issues to the Clinton/Ukraine collaboration and the Clinton involvement with the Russians thorough Steele.

(04-24-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:21 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Perhaps you arent as nuanced a conversationalist as he would prefer.

Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?

You kind of implied that Tanq should get off his soap box. On the Quad.

I must have missed it when Tanq criticized your soap box.

You sure are touchy lately. Is it because Mueller found no collusion? Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

You ready with the moral and ethical issues you referenced?*

*Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

Be sure to tie those moral and ethical issues to the Clinton/Ukraine collaboration and the Clinton involvement with the Russians thorough Steele.

I've been ignoring your questions about the moral/ethical issues because they've been provided to you so many times that it's pointless to do it once more.

(04-24-2019 02:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 02:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 11:12 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Nice little soap box you got there.

You seem to be rather cranky that I suggested a topic deserves some nuance and care.

Soap boxes are what the Quad is for. You have one, I have one. Not much use coming here if you have no viewpoint to advocate. Soap boxes are the bedrock of free speech.

And I never said the Quad wasn't the place for it, did I?

Did you chide Tanq when he said the same thing to me in another thread you're actively participating in?

You kind of implied that Tanq should get off his soap box. On the Quad.

I must have missed it when Tanq criticized your soap box.

You sure are touchy lately. Is it because Mueller found no collusion? Kind of like finding out there is no Santa Claus.

You ready with the moral and ethical issues you referenced?*

*Trump supporters are hanging their hat on the fact that facts and evidence do not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that anything illegal occurred, while completely ignoring the moral and ethical issues that arise.

Be sure to tie those moral and ethical issues to the Clinton/Ukraine collaboration and the Clinton involvement with the Russians thorough Steele.

I've been ignoring your questions about the moral/ethical issues because they've been provided to you so many times that it's pointless to do it once more.

Dodge, and dodge, and dodge. You keep bringing them up. I know why you are dodging them.

So answer the question about how Clinton/Ukraine is different from the alleged Trump/Russia that Mueller didn't find.

(04-24-2019 03:23 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-24-2019 02:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I've been ignoring your questions about the moral/ethical issues because they've been provided to you so many times that it's pointless to do it once more.

Dodge, and dodge, and dodge. You keep bringing them up. I know why you are dodging them.
So answer the question about how Clinton/Ukraine is different from the alleged Trump/Russia that Mueller didn't find.

How about one happened, the other didn't?

Rosenstein