Mueller Report Imminent

#6,901
#6,901
Orange_Crush said:
Either see a therapist or see if Hannity will take you out for dinner, but your preoccupation with that guy is unnatural.
Click to expand...
I only say that because you parrot his rants. I could replace his name with Tucker, Fox n Friends friends, and whoever else is spouting this stuff from Fox News and Breitbart. I could say the same for your preoccupation with Hillary/Obama by the way..
 
#6,902
#6,902
ajvol01 said:
The math that no longer accurately predicts the outcome of elections because the polls aren't getting an adequate cross-section of potential voters.
Click to expand...

Eh?

Polls aren't predictors, they reveal opinions in a snapshot of time. You and moony clearly don't have the vaugest idea of how polls work or what they measure.
 
#6,903
#6,903
MOOOOONEY said:
Your fallacy was based on poll numbers showing Biden would win the presidential election.

I just reminded you that you chocked on the pole numbers in 2016 that said hiLIARy would win the general election.

All the pole numbers you want to stroke again doesn’t mean sh$t.
Click to expand...

Part of your problem is that you have misunderstood (or worse, willfully misrepresented) my argument from the begining. The larger and more troubling problem is that despite me spoonfeeding you facts, you still haven't managed to understand and capitulate to the fact that the polls were generally right, all the way to the end. I get that this revelation is counter to the "lol memes" youve seen but I can assure you, the math does check out on this.

... And it's getting awkward. There's a difference between ignorance of a subject and willful stupidity. The former is forgivable, quit while you're behind.
 
#6,904
#6,904
RockyTop85 said:
I still don’t think your first paragraph is correct. Attempts and endeavors are covered under these statutes. The pictures below show the relevant discussion of the statutes from the report. The idea that obstruction reaches “all corrupt conduct capable of producing...” seems like a very broad definition that might not be shared by all courts, but the other two pages are harder to work around.

By “presumed facts” I’m referring to the facts stated in the report. I’m presuming that to be true until it’s refuted by someone reliable.

Honestly, my recollection of the section on what Trump was told in this specific instance is that I was not satisfied by what the report said about what he was told. It seemed to lead the reader to the conclusion that he was told he should direct issues with the investigation to his personal attorney because McGahn felt he had become a witness to a potential crime (firing of Comey), but it did not say this explicitly. It may be that the notes they had were not sufficient to find more and the witnesses did not remember.

Ironically, the report does detail a number of conversations somewhat similar to the example you give here, though. At every turn he is counseled by people like Bannon, McGahn, Chris Cristy, and likely his own lawyers, to leave it alone.
Click to expand...
That definition of obstruction is scary. If that is the standard I dont see how literally every president, or person under federal investigation isnt guilty. You tried to effect the path of the investigation, that is some dangerously broad words. Does that apply to prosecutors as well? I doubt it does, but it should.

The possibilities of that are literally endless. Trump might be guilty under that, but I would think Hillary is as well providing a known crap piece of evidence to the investigation. Prosecutors should be guilty of that for leaning on witnesses, threatening legal actions just to get someone to cooperate, something we definitely saw in this investigation.

If that's the leg you want to stand on, congrats for killing any America I want to live in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, Matt2496 and hog88
#6,915
#6,915
zeppelin128 said:
I only say that because you parrot his rants. I could replace his name with Tucker, Fox n Friends friends, and whoever else is spouting this stuff from Fox News and Breitbart. I could say the same for your preoccupation with Hillary/Obama by the way..
Click to expand...
The funny thing is I haven't watched any of them. I wouldn't know what they're ranting because I haven't turned Fox News on in years, so it looks like you're the Fox viewer between us.

See a therapist or ask him out to dinner. You've been paying more attention to him than me, and you're definitely the one dreaming about him on an internet message board.
 
#6,918
#6,918
Orange_Crush said:
The funny thing is I haven't watched any of them. I wouldn't know what they're ranting because I haven't turned Fox News on in years, so it looks like you're the Fox viewer between us.

See a therapist or ask him out to dinner. You've been paying more attention to him than me, and you're definitely the one dreaming about him on an internet message board.
Click to expand...
Same can be said for your obsession with Hillary and Obama. Weak sauce, you normally have better retorts. We can go on a double date next time and discuss it; I'll bring Sean.
 
#6,919
#6,919
zeppelin128 said:
Same can be said for your obsession with Hillary and Obama. Weak sauce, you normally have better retorts. We can go on a double date next time and discuss it; I'll bring Sean.
Click to expand...
Go back and quote how many times I've mentioned them. I'll wait. You have me confused with someone else, but now I think I understand why you're so defensive these days.

You're showing that you don't really want to deal with arguments, just name-call in defense of any perceived threat to Obama and Hillary. I won't waste time on you. Good day.
 
Last edited:
#6,920
#6,920
zeppelin128 said:
You do realize it was a Republican lead committee in the Senate that sent the subpoena, right? Should I repeat that the Republican majority committee sent the subpoena? Halve that vitriol you carry for Democrats and spread it around a bit. Mix it up.
Click to expand...
Way to set me straight on something I already know. Let me set you straight on something you obviously do not know. Many Republicans are RINOs. Republican in Name Only. Some of those are: Burr, Romney, Alexander, Murkowski, Collins, etc. Just to name a few. McCain was one of the worst. Mr No Name.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#6,921
#6,921
BigOrangeD said:
Way to set me straight on something I already know. Let me set you straight on something you obviously do not know. Many Republicans are RINOs. Republican in Name Only. Some of those are: Burr, Romney, Alexander, Murkowski, Collins, etc. Just to name a few. McCain was one of the worst. Mr No Name.
Click to expand...


Interesting how Burr just popped up on your list. What has earned him this distinction?
 
#6,922
#6,922
Orange_Crush said:
Go back and quote how many times I've mentioned them. I'll wait. You have me confused with someone else, but now I think I understand why you're so defensive these days.

You're showing that you don't really want to deal with arguments, just name-call in defense of any perceived threat to Obama and Hillary. I won't waste time on you. Good day.
Click to expand...
That isn't the case at all. But good day to you as well sir.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top