The Art of Compromise

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

No I'm not.  I'm telling you my impression from watching this ridiculous media circus for the last few years.

So the media being a circus has made you draw the conclusion that law enforcement is actually working for the democrat party?

[+OverSword]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

So the media being a circus has made you draw the conclusion that law enforcement is actually working for the democrat party?

Sure Farmer, why not 

I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm under the impression that the dems will do absolutely anything to  have power.

 

[Farmer77]

28 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Sure Farmer, why not 

I don't know how many times I have to say it, I'm under the impression that the dems will do absolutely anything to  have power.

 

Well im under the same assumption of the politicos on both sides.

The facts dont back up the position that you have been arguing as fact however. Its just readily accepted conspiracy theory based on preconceived notions and that speaks directly to the core of what ive been talking about. The intentional propaganda has been so bad that its become almost impossible to have a conversation actually based on the facts available and there is no longer anyone on the right who isnt playing that game . 

Where it becomes dangerous and maybe irrecoverable is when folks are convinced to overlap those preconceived biases onto the law enforcement and branches of government that oversee our elected officials. Sadly we're obviously well past that point on the right.

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Which didn't happen and was brought on by a report solicited by the clinton campaign from a (supposedly) former foreign intelligence agent.  

Indeed, and the report was at least non-partisan enough to write that President Trump was not directly implicated.  To use this analogy of a witch hunt, yes it was a very successful one with an entire coven of witches exposed. A number are now in prison.  The inquisitor found President Trump standing at the alter at the center of the coven.  Again, the inquisitor was non-partisan enough to say that he could not tell if the president was the leader of the coven or its next unwitting victim.  End of report.  If it started with a tip from a foreign intelligence officer working as a private contractor, that was not the only evidence used against Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Papadopalous  and the Russians.

A partisan, kangaroo court could have implicated Trump in the first month.  I think it took two years because Muller was thorough and honest.  Maybe you have a different opinion that fits the facts better?

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

I think the only thing that will clean our government up will be very large changes concerning campaign financing, insider trading when it comes to senators, term limits, and lobbying.

edti:  Oh and of course guillotines.

I will stand with you for everything except the guillotines.  They did not seem to have a long term beneficial effect on France.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Indeed, and the report was at least non-partisan enough to write that President Trump was not directly implicated.  To use this analogy of a witch hunt, yes it was a very successful one with an entire coven of witches exposed. A number are now in prison.  The inquisitor found President Trump standing at the alter at the center of the coven.  Again, the inquisitor was non-partisan enough to say that he could not tell if the president was the leader of the coven or its next unwitting victim.  End of report.  If it started with a tip from a foreign intelligence officer working as a private contractor, that was not the only evidence used against Flynn, Manafort, Cohen, Papadopalous  and the Russians.

A partisan, kangaroo court could have implicated Trump in the first month.  I think it took two years because Muller was thorough and honest.  Maybe you have a different opinion that fits the facts better?

It took two years because he wasn't uncovering evidence to directly implicate trump, otherwise would have taken four to six months.  IMO.

edit:  Which is why he never exonerated trump.  Just couldn't quite bring himself to admit that donald wasn't involved so left it at "maybe".  Very thorough 

Edited November 4, 2019 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

Just now, Tatetopa said:

I will stand with you for everything except the guillotines.  They did not seem to have a long term beneficial effect on France.

But drew higher ratings than the debates 

[Farmer77]

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

It took two years because he wasn't uncovering evidence to directly implicate trump, otherwise would have taken four to six months.  IMO.

There were witnesses fighting subpoenas to testify and offer material evidence for near that long if not longer. Again facts matter.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Again facts matter.

Do they now?  Is it a fact that Mueller did more harm to the nation than good?

Edited November 4, 2019 by OverSword

[Doug1029]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

And there would still be 30 to 40 thousand that get killed by firearms from all causes.  Don't you think that the 2 to 3 hundred that die in mass shootings are pale in comparison?  Trying to eliminate assault rifles is an irrational obsession.  It is the killer in a mass shooting that violates the 2nd Amendment, so why do you attack the 2nd and not the killer?  There is no compromising our Rights.  Yes, there are those that lose their lives in shootings but it is sick to exploit their deaths to severely restrict the Rights of hundreds of millions of others.  That is the slippery slope to tyranny.

As of September 24, 2019, there had been 334 mass shootings (4+ dead, not counting the perpetrator) with 1347 people injured and 377 dead.  Last year (2018) there were 323 mass shootings involving 1661 victims and 387 deaths.

All-in-all, I'm surprised that mass murderers are such bad shots.

 

According to the Federalist Papers, there is no intrinsic right to own a gun, except as a member of a "well-ordered militia."  Gun rights have been expanded far over what the Founders intended.

 

The right to keep and bear arms is chiefly used to support the gun hobby.  Hundreds killed and thousands wounded is an awful steep price to pay for a hobby.

Historically, unarmed demonstrations and protests have had better luck changing the status quo than have armed revolutions.  Guns are not needed for that purpose.  Do you really envision going up against a company of Marines with your gun collection?  If so, you're mentally unfit to own a gun.

Doug

[Doug1029]

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Do they now?  Is it a fact that Mueller did more harm to the nation than good?

No.

Doug

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Do they now?  Is it a fact that Mueller did more harm to the nation than good?

Weird question. From my perspective politics dont come into play when discussing national security. The investigation was necessary period end of discussion.

Considering the man with the nuclear codes was looking a helluva lot like a Russian tool I guess if you put a gun to my head I would argue the investigation did more good than harm.

The immature reaction to being investigated that felt the need to frame Trump as a victim of political persecution however has done massive harm. Again bringing us back to my original point.  We've reached a point where no desperate conspiracy theory is too outlandish to be repeated if it means keeping power for Trump or getting a "win" over liberals.

 

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

And there would still be 30 to 40 thousand that get killed by firearms from all causes.  Don't you think that the 2 to 3 hundred that die in mass shootings are pale in comparison?  Trying to eliminate assault rifles is an irrational obsession.  It is the killer in a mass shooting that violates the 2nd Amendment, so why do you attack the 2nd and not the killer?  There is no compromising our Rights.  Yes, there are those that lose their lives in shootings but it is sick to exploit their deaths to severely restrict the Rights of hundreds of millions of others.  That is the slippery slope to tyranny.

Of course, and that is what makes it NOT a compromise, anymore than your  post about giving up socialism. I have owned one or more firearm since I was 14, but never an assault rifle, so it really is not a compromise for me is it?  And I don't really want to give up 2A.

I suppose, now that I think about it, I wasn't willing to give up anything, and you were.

You were willing to give up roads, a standing army and navy, post office, power, water, and other utilities, fire and police, public lands, the weather service,and diplomacy with other nation states.  You could voluntarily refuse to partake of all of that socialism by moving to the boonies in Alaska, or the mountains of Idaho or Montana and being self sufficient.  Just don't pollute your good intentions  by straying onto socialist controlled  public lands.

 

[Doug1029]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Weird question. From my perspective politics dont come into play when discussing national security. The investigation was necessary period end of discussion.

Considering the man with the nuclear codes was looking a helluva lot like a Russian tool I guess if you put a gun to my head I would argue the investigation did more good than harm.

The immature reaction to being investigated that felt the need to frame Trump as a victim of political persecution however has done massive harm. Again bringing us back to my original point.  We've reached a point where no desperate conspiracy theory is too outlandish to be repeated if it means keeping power for Trump or getting a "win" over liberals.

 

During the Nixon Administration as impeachment loomed, the Joint Chiefs deactivated the nuclear codes, fearing that Nixon might try to start something.  I wonder if they might have done it this time.  For obvious reasons, they can't say, but prudence would dictate such an action.

Doug

[+OverSword]

14 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

The investigation was necessary

And inconclusive because it didn't implicate trump.  Two and a half years and Mueller didn't come up with an answer.  Why not?  Why couldn't the answer have been trump did or didn't work with a foreign government to influence the election?  I think it's because they couldn't get the answer they wanted.

[+OverSword]

20 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

No.

Doug

Yes.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

And inconclusive because it didn't implicate trump.  Two and a half years and Mueller didn't come up with an answer.  Why not?  Why couldn't the answer have been trump did or didn't work with a foreign government to influence the election?  I think it's because they couldn't get the answer they wanted.

Paraphrasing what I just said in another thread it takes a huge (and weirdly contradictory) leap of faith to believe that there was a massive conspiracy theory to sink Trump at the highest levels of government and that instead of doing so during the election they publicly announced an investigation into his opponent who they actually wanted to win......

 

[Doug1029]

53 minutes ago, OverSword said:

And inconclusive because it didn't implicate trump.  Two and a half years and Mueller didn't come up with an answer.  Why not?  Why couldn't the answer have been trump did or didn't work with a foreign government to influence the election?  I think it's because they couldn't get the answer they wanted.

According to the DOJ memo, a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime.  So Mueller didn't charge him with any.  He reported what he found and let Congress proceed from there.  But Congress didn't proceed.  And that'w where it stands.

BUT:  tRUMP can still be impeached on that evidence if Congress ever develops a backbone.  OR:  it can wait until he's out of office by whatever means and charge him then.  The Mueller report is not closed.  It's just that nobody is doing and work on it.

Doug

[Farmer77]

5 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

BUT:  tRUMP can still be impeached on that evidence if Congress ever develops a backbone.  OR:  it can wait until he's out of office by whatever means and charge him then.  The Mueller report is not closed.  It's just that nobody is doing and work on it.

It will be interesting to see if they add articles of impeachment for the obstruction of justice in the Mueller report to go with the obstruction of congress from the Ukraine issue to establish a pattern of lawlessness. Or if they completely stay away from that issue at all for fear of muddying the waters.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Farmer77

[+OverSword]

25 minutes ago, Doug1029 said:

According to the DOJ memo, a sitting President cannot be charged with a crime.  So Mueller didn't charge him with any.  He reported what he found and let Congress proceed from there.  But Congress didn't proceed.  And that'w where it stands.

BUT:  tRUMP can still be impeached on that evidence if Congress ever develops a backbone.  OR:  it can wait until he's out of office by whatever means and charge him then.  The Mueller report is not closed.  It's just that nobody is doing and work on it.

Doug

So what law did Mueller determine trump broke that he can't be charged with?

[Doug1029]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So what law did Mueller determine trump broke that he can't be charged with?

Mueller never said.  But it is abundantly clear from the text that tRUMP et al. had numerous contacts with Russians, the content of which meetings could result in them being charged with conspiracy and solicitation of bribes.

Doug

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, Doug1029 said:

Mueller never said.  But it is abundantly clear from the text that tRUMP et al. had numerous contacts with Russians, the content of which meetings could result in them being charged with conspiracy and solicitation of bribes.

Doug

Are you saying that he wasn't supposed to point out which laws were broken and nobody can figure it out?   I find that a bit tough to believe.

[Farmer77]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So what law did Mueller determine trump broke that he can't be charged with?

 

1 minute ago, Doug1029 said:

Mueller never said.  But it is abundantly clear from the text that tRUMP et al. had numerous contacts with Russians, the content of which meetings could result in them being charged with conspiracy and solicitation of bribes.

Doug

Its important to note why Mueller never said  https://www.businessinsider.com/why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-with-obstruction-of-justice-2019-4#heres-why-mueller-didnt-charge-trump-with-obstruction-according-to-his-report-5

Quote

Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:

• They adhered to the OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
• They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
• Mueller did not consider filing a sealed indictment against Trump out of fear that it would be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.

 

[+OverSword]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:

Charged with what?

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

Charged with what?

Obstruction of justice. 

I know I know 10 different counts of obstructing an investigation into possible Russian collusion isnt proof of collusion with Russia but it really does highlight what we were discussing earlier about your belief that the investigation was intentionally dragged out because they wanted to "get Trump".