Jump to content

Mueller says Trump was not exonerated but Trump declares victory


webfact

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

whip dead horse.jpg

Maybe to you the Attorney General of the United States giving a flawed and slanted summary of the Mueller investigion, and not allowing a much fuller version to be released is a small issue. But calling it such doesn't explain why it is a small issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 397
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, bristolboy said:

Maybe to you the Attorney General of the United States giving a flawed and slanted summary of the Mueller investigion, and not allowing a much fuller version to be released is a small issue. But calling it such doesn't explain why it is a small issue.

 

Really? How much of it was redacted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:
17 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

whip dead horse.jpg

Maybe to you the Attorney General of the United States giving a flawed and slanted summary of the Mueller investigion, and not allowing a much fuller version to be released is a small issue. But calling it such doesn't explain why it is a small issue.

 

the gist is "beating a dead horse"

 

might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, atyclb said:

 

the gist is "beating a dead horse"

 

might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome

Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills. 


I thought the house only approved actual bills, no?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
the gist is "beating a dead horse"
 
might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome


No, Trump will be impeached any day now!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's not a bill until the President signs it. Before that, it has to be reconciled with the Senate version.

If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a bill until the President signs it. Before that, it has to be reconciled with the Senate version.


Then why do they call them bills?

So all the guys that have said Trump refused to sign an gun control bill were lying? I knew it!

Anyways,I thought once the President signed it became law, no?

So why do they call them law makers and not bill makers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


Then why do they call them bills?

So all the guys that have said Trump refused to sign an gun control bill were lying? I knew it!

Anyways,I thought once the President signed it became law, no?

So why do they call them law makers and not bill makers?

 

You are correct. I was mistaken. Now that we've established that, how does it alter in any meaningful way my reply to this:

 

"might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome"

  •  
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You are correct. I was mistaken. Now that we've established that, how does it alter in any meaningful way my reply to this:

 

"might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome"

  •  

 

Your response was: "Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills." , correct?

 

I think a better question might be: How does your response address in any meaningful way, the post you were responding to?

 

What has the house gotten done besides passing a lot of bills they know will go nowhere? They even refused to impeach Trump, why? I'll give you a hint, it's not because the senate will kill it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Your response was: "Some people have trouble chewing gum and walking at the same time. Others have no problem addressing more than one issue at a time. And since the House is composed of lots of members and committees, why do you think that impeachment would be the only issue on which the House can take action?  In fact, the House has approved lots of potential bills." , correct?

 

I think a better question might be: How does your response address in any meaningful way, the post you were responding to?

 

What has the house gotten done besides passing a lot of bills they know will go nowhere? They even refused to impeach Trump, why? I'll give you a hint, it's not because the senate will kill it. 

I suppose I could be flattered by the way you echo me rather than saddened by your rather clueless use of my words.

I absolutely did answer him. His assumption seems to be that the House can't do more than one thing at a time. That doing an impeachment will prevent it from getting other things done. I pointed out that this is not only ridiculous but far from the truth. 

 

In addition I guess it's kind of amusing your lack of awareness of the contradictory nature of the posts you make. On the one hand, you say the impeachment is pointless because the Senate will vote it down. But on the other you reproach the House for passing bills the Senate won't take up. The fact is that the Senate is dominated by right wing Republicans. So there's very little chance that the House and Senate can agree on much.

 

And concerning what they can agree on has not been blocked by calls for impeachment. Or did you miss the fact that the Congress just passed a budget  in which it agreed to suspend deficit constraints for 2 years? Do you actually follow the news at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, marcusarelus said:

If a bill has passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate and has been approved by the President, or if a presidential veto has been overridden, the bill becomes a law and is enforced by the government.

Well you finally got something right. And I did get that wrong. But mine was merely an error of nomenclature, whereas you made repeated errors about the actual process. The other difference between your  and mine is that I admit my errors. Whereas you try to cover yours up with ridiculous excuses or don't acknowledge them at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I suppose I could be flattered by the way you echo me rather than saddened by your rather clueless use of my words.

I absolutely did answer him. His assumption seems to be that the House can't do more than one thing at a time. That doing an impeachment will prevent it from getting other things done. I pointed out that this is not only ridiculous but far from the truth. 

 

In addition I guess it's kind of amusing your lack of awareness of the contradictory nature of the posts you make. On the one hand, you say the impeachment is pointless because the Senate will vote it down. But on the other you reproach the House for passing bills the Senate won't take up. The fact is that the Senate is dominated by right wing Republicans. So there's very little chance that the House and Senate can agree on much.

 

And concerning what they can agree on has not been blocked by calls for impeachment. Or did you miss the fact that the Congress just passed a budget  in which it agreed to suspend deficit constraints for 2 years? Do you actually follow the news at all?

 

Well, you catch more flies with sugar than salt, yes?

 

You understood his post differently than I did, when he said (copied from your post): "might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" , I took that to mean he felt that pursuing the Mueller investigation was a waste of time, I didn't take it to mean the house could do only one thing at a time, or that if they chose to pursue impeachment, they could do nothing else. 

 

I never said nor meant to imply impeachment was pointless, I only asked why they didn't pursue it.  And the reason is that they will end up looking like a bunch of idiots. Nancy knows this. If they went through with impeachment and the republicans blocked it in the senate, they would own the next election, unless of course a bunch of stuff came out that made them look like morons. Fortunately (unfortunately for them) they would not be able to limit the scope of the testimony, and everything would come out. Even with the press running interference for them and controlling the dialog, it would likely be devastating.

 

If you don't think this is true, then why do you think they don't move ahead with impeachment? Most everyone I know wants to them to move ahead with it, I know I do.

 

Yes, the senate is dominated by right wing republicans in the same way the house is dominated by left wing democrats.

 

Wow, the house voted to increase spending, shocking. So do you give Trump any credit for pushing republicans to vote for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

 

Wow, the house voted to increase spending, shocking. So do you give Trump any credit for pushing republicans to vote for it?

Actually, if you follow the news, it was the Senate and House Republicans who pushed Trump to sign it. Not the other way around. He was the potential roadblock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you follow the news, it was the Senate and House Republicans who pushed Trump to sign it. Not the other way around. He was the potential roadblock.

Well that's good news, but I was hoping he would veto it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mogandave said:
16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

I suppose I could be flattered by the way you echo me rather than saddened by your rather clueless use of my words.

I absolutely did answer him. His assumption seems to be that the House can't do more than one thing at a time. That doing an impeachment will prevent it from getting other things done. I pointed out that this is not only ridiculous but far from the truth. 

 

In addition I guess it's kind of amusing your lack of awareness of the contradictory nature of the posts you make. On the one hand, you say the impeachment is pointless because the Senate will vote it down. But on the other you reproach the House for passing bills the Senate won't take up. The fact is that the Senate is dominated by right wing Republicans. So there's very little chance that the House and Senate can agree on much.

 

And concerning what they can agree on has not been blocked by calls for impeachment. Or did you miss the fact that the Congress just passed a budget  in which it agreed to suspend deficit constraints for 2 years? Do you actually follow the news at all?

 

Well, you catch more flies with sugar than salt, yes?

 

You understood his post differently than I did, when he said (copied from your post): "might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" , I took that to mean he felt that pursuing the Mueller investigation was a waste of time, I didn't take it to mean the house could do only one thing at a time, or that if they chose to pursue impeachment, they could do nothing else. 

 

I never said nor meant to imply impeachment was pointless, I only asked why they didn't pursue it.  And the reason is that they will end up looking like a bunch of idiots. Nancy knows this. If they went through with impeachment and the republicans blocked it in the senate, they would own the next election, unless of course a bunch of stuff came out that made them look like morons. Fortunately (unfortunately for them) they would not be able to limit the scope of the testimony, and everything would come out. Even with the press running interference for them and controlling the dialog, it would likely be devastating.

 

If you don't think this is true, then why do you think they don't move ahead with impeachment? Most everyone I know wants to them to move ahead with it, I know I do.

 

Yes, the senate is dominated by right wing republicans in the same way the house is dominated by left wing democrats.

 

Wow, the house voted to increase spending, shocking. So do you give Trump any credit for pushing republicans to vote for it?

 

 

agree; precisely what i meant with that statement

 

some posters are akin to drama queens obsessed with trump and seem to spend their waking hours living and breathing it.

 

trump derangement syndrome may be the minor component compared with tvf derangement syndrome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

 

agree; precisely what i meant with that statement

 

some posters are akin to drama queens obsessed with trump and seem to spend their waking hours living and breathing it.

 

trump derangement syndrome may be the minor component compared with tvf derangement syndrome. 

Here's what you wrote:

"might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" 

"rather than" is exclusionary.

I can't be held accountable if what you write doesn't match what you meant. You presented it as a binary choice. One or the other. Your spin is very wobbly.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's what you wrote:
"might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" 
"rather than" is exclusionary.
I can't be held accountable if what you write doesn't match what you meant. You presented it as a binary choice. One or the other. Your spin is very wobbly.
 
 


Yes, but he said “...address issues...”, which is plural, indicating more than one at a time could be addressed, while not wasting all that time on the Mueller debacle, yesh?

In any event, you have this shooting to divert everyone’s attention to now...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 


Yes, but he said “...address issues...”, which is plural, indicating more than one at a time could be addressed, while not wasting all that time on the Mueller debacle, yesh?

In any event, you have this shooting to divert everyone’s attention to now...

 

whether it's one issue that could be addressed or several, he made it choice between addressing them or pursuing impeachment. So apparently it's possible to address several issue in his view except if one of those issues is impeachment? Why would that be the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

whether it's one issue that could be addressed or several, he made it choice between addressing them or pursuing impeachment. So apparently it's possible to address several issue in his view except if one of those issues is impeachment? Why would that be the case?

Because (I understand it) thinks the Mueller debacle is a waste of time.

 

Regardless of how many things you can do at once, they all use resources. Doing one less allows you to put more effort into the other things. 

 

We each understand what he wrote differently, I just happened to understand it the way he meant it. It doesn't mean one of us is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mogandave said:

Because (I understand it) thinks the Mueller debacle is a waste of time.

 

Regardless of how many things you can do at once, they all use resources. Doing one less allows you to put more effort into the other things. 

 

We each understand what he wrote differently, I just happened to understand it the way he meant it. It doesn't mean one of us is wrong.

That's because you're a mind reader and I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, bristolboy said:
5 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

 

agree; precisely what i meant with that statement

 

some posters are akin to drama queens obsessed with trump and seem to spend their waking hours living and breathing it.

 

trump derangement syndrome may be the minor component compared with tvf derangement syndrome. 

Here's what you wrote:

"might be more productive to join forces to address issues facing americans rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" 

"rather than" is exclusionary.

I can't be held accountable if what you write doesn't match what you meant. You presented it as a binary choice. One or the other. Your spin is very wobbly.

 

 

"rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" "

 

is quite clear to a reasonable person to mean dont lose more time nor spend more taxpayer money especially in light of the person learning the most about the mueller report after the day of testimony was rob mueller.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

 

"rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" "

 

is quite clear to a reasonable person to mean dont lose more time nor spend more taxpayer money especially in light of the person learning the most about the mueller report after the day of testimony was rob mueller.

 

Keep trying to explain away "rather than". Good luck with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:
8 hours ago, atyclb said:

 

 

"rather than losing more time and taxpayer money due to trump derangement syndrome" "

 

is quite clear to a reasonable person to mean dont lose more time nor spend more taxpayer money especially in light of the person learning the most about the mueller report after the day of testimony was rob mueller.

 

Keep trying to explain away "rather than". Good luck with that.

 

i finally see the light and realize mere mortals cannot compete with your intellect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Well you finally got something right. And I did get that wrong. But mine was merely an error of nomenclature, whereas you made repeated errors about the actual process. The other difference between your  and mine is that I admit my errors. Whereas you try to cover yours up with ridiculous excuses or don't acknowledge them at all. 

I always link my posts so people can see the error.  You just make up things and think people believe you - feel free to link any of my errors if no link, it didn't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...