Here it is: The Mueller report is out.

[Aldebaran]

The only people that call Trump's opponents "sore losers" are his hardcore supporters who can only view Trump with a 16 oz. can of hairspray---and a one gallon coating of teflon.

The rest of us see him how he is.

And yet, for some odd reason, the Left just can't stand the idea that they lost the election, and Donald J. Trump won and is the president of the United States of America and will continue to be for another year and a half, and maybe another 4 years beyond that.

Accept reality, and learn to live with it. Remember, Trump's haters, no matter how self-righteous, aren't exactly the owners of truth. The voters discovered that during the 2016 election when they were being lied to by the MSM and then voted against the candidate the MSM was trying to force down their throats.

 

[childeye 2]

Has your study of semantics fueled an appetite for flowery speeches that avoid a point when it is presented to you?

I find this response as being worthy of a chuckle. However I do not consider stating what is obvious to me, as composing a flowery speech. And I feel that I forthrightly addressed your point about bias by explaining that when we reason upon true dichotomies we are either bias towards Love or bias towards wickedness. That is the moral/immoral paradigm which will determine where faith is pointing.

You on the other hand are probably reasoning upon either the vague political labels of left and right, or else the tribal aspect of Republican and Democrat which are not actually true dichotomies. Therefore you feel I avoided your point when actually I transcended that thought process with the eternal epiphany where flowery speeches bloom.

 

[childeye 2]

Are you trying to tell me that if I don't agree with your conclusion, then you're going to judge me as having a dark heart and mind?

No, I'm saying that we all have a dark heart and mind before we do to others what we wouldn't want done to us, and I am right about that.

Haven't you ever conversed with someone who has a different view of things than you?

Well let's be precise with our thoughts and words here. Everyone has a unique view of what is true subjectively speaking. But objectively speaking, there is a higher Truth that should be served that serves all persons equitably. The acknowledging of both is why grace is reasonable and cynicism is unreasonable. Please notice that treating others as you would want to be treated requires both subjective and objective views applied at once.

Having said that, yes of course I talk with people all the time who have a different view subjectively speaking. But fundamentally most disagreements are based on either semantical misunderstandings or carnal verses spiritual motives. So if you're going to defend a cynical approach to the purpose of this investigation, then you are going to lose every debate with me because you're going to inevitably end up arguing against doing to others what you would want done to you since cynicism is a carnal impulse. That is why any reasoning based upon falsehood ends in a contradiction and manifests hypocrisy.

 

[Allandavid]

Gave you word for word conclusion. Fess up, you just don't agree.

You have not addressed your claim. Mueller does not state that he “doesn’t have enough evidence” for a charge of obstruction. You are repeating a lie...

 

[Allandavid]

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/n...t-enough-evidence-to-prosecute-trump-campaign

Nice try.....no, scratch that, it’s a really weak try...

That conclusion was reached by Barr, not Mueller...! And we can see what a fine, fair judge Barr is turning out to be...

 

[TLK Valentine]

Neither, but rather about the right of the people to decide for themselves. The democrat leadership in congress has no problem with letting the people decide, do they?

Decide what for themselves? Guilt or innocence?

That's not how our criminal justice system works, in case you weren't aware.

ETA: Actually, come to think of it, that is how it will be determined -- in either 2021 or (if God is angry with us) 2025... Shortly after Donald leaves office, twelve of the people will be chosen at random to decide for themselves his guilt or innocence. And by then, most of his current supporters (including, for example, yourself) will have tossed him under the bus in favor of the Right's new flavor of the month.

 

[Always in His Presence]

You have not addressed your claim. Mueller does not state that he “doesn’t have enough evidence” for a charge of obstruction. You are repeating a lie...

No I am not.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No I am not.

A pity. We've heard this same lie from others... are you claiming you haven't?

 

[Always in His Presence]

The inability or refusal to comprehend a statement from one party does not equal a fallacy on the other.

 

[KCfromNC]

It was already explained to you why he did not state his personal conclusion. Read post #360.

Picked an example post at random to make my point.

I find it interesting that there's one side here posting pages and pages of actual quotes from the report. And another set of posters with short responses. The interesting thing - the ones posting quotes with evidence from the investigation aren't the ones defending Trump. Weird how that pattern has emerged.

 

[bhsmte]

How about me?

Whatever works for you.

 

[TLK Valentine]

And yet, for some odd reason, the Left just can't stand the idea that they lost the election,

You are seriously fixated on that, aren't you?

None of Donald's criminal activities mean a thing, do they?

 

[bhsmte]

You have not addressed your claim. Mueller does not state that he “doesn’t have enough evidence” for a charge of obstruction. You are repeating a lie...

Agree, for the most part.

Mueller simply laid out what his investigation discovered along with legal theories. He made no call on whether evidence exists to call for charges.

I cant wait for him to testify.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nice try.....no, scratch that, it’s a really weak try...

That conclusion was reached by Barr, not Mueller...! And we can see what a fine, fair judge Barr is turning out to be...

What "try" are you saying is so nice? I posted a link to a website. Seems to have been successful too.

 

[Aldebaran]

I find this response as being worthy of a chuckle. However I do not consider stating what is obvious to me, as composing a flowery speech. And I feel that I forthrightly addressed your point about bias by explaining that when we reason upon true dichotomies we are either bias towards Love or bias towards wickedness. That is the moral/immoral paradigm which will determine where faith is pointing.

Don't forget about truth and falsehood, and the incentive of the ones doing all the investigating after their party lost the election. Do you really think the democrats are trying to paint Trump as a wicked person out of love?

 

[Speedwell]

Don't forget about truth and falsehood, and the incentive of the ones doing all the investigating after their party lost the election. Do you really think the democrats are trying to paint Trump as a wicked person out of love?

It may just be that they sincerely believe him to be a wicked person.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, I'm saying that we all have a dark heart and mind before we do to others what we wouldn't want done to us, and I am right about that.
Well let's be precise with our thoughts and words here. Everyone has a unique view of what is true subjectively speaking. But objectively speaking, there is a higher Truth that should be served that serves all persons equitably. The acknowledging of both is why grace is reasonable and cynicism is unreasonable. Please notice that treating others as you would want to be treated requires both subjective and objective views applied at once.

Having said that, yes of course I talk with people all the time who have a different view subjectively speaking. But fundamentally most disagreements are based on either semantical misunderstandings or carnal verses spiritual motives. So if you're going to defend a cynical approach to the purpose of this investigation, then you are going to lose every debate with me because you're going to inevitably end up arguing against doing to others what you would want done to you since cynicism is a carnal impulse. That is why any reasoning based upon falsehood ends in a contradiction and manifests hypocrisy.

What you're referring to as a "cynical approach" by me is based on my experiences with what I've seen reported about Trump from the beginning. I've noticed the extreme bias, both by the democrat leadership in Congress and in the media where everything they report about him has a negative slant to it. If he says something against someone, he's portrayed as "blasting, attacking, belittling, or slandering". If someone else makes a similar statement against Trump, the media portrays it as, "Standing up to Trump, or confronting Trump, or putting Trump in his place, or correcting Trump".

Tell me now, is this done out of what you consider to be love? Or do you think maybe there's something else at work here?

 

[Aldebaran]

It may just be that they sincerely believe him to be a wicked person.

And proceed to portray him that way based on those beliefs. Just another definition of "bias" based on what someone else here calls cynicism.

 

[Aldebaran]

Decide what for themselves? Guilt or innocence?

That's not how our criminal justice system works, in case you weren't aware.

Since we're still talking about the 2020 election, it's referring to the decision about who the people want to be their president. It's not a trial. It's an election.

 

[Aldebaran]

You are seriously fixated on that, aren't you?

None of Donald's criminal activities mean a thing, do they?

What crime has he been convicted of?