"If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

[rambot]

This is not even close to accurate. This man draws crowds like a rock star. Some of his rallies have 40 to 60 thousand people outside of the venue watching live on huge screens. This is of course "fact checked", but if you have ever been to one you have seen the crowds. The reality is nowhere near on par with the narrative, and in many ways that hinders the left, because they have no real grasp of the massive amounts of people that go to listen to this politician speak. This man has groupies that tour the nation and camp outside of venues for days to make sure they "get into" every rallie he gives.

Who fact checked that fact?
Because snopes did too!
FACT CHECK: Does This Photograph Show 66,000 People Outside a Trump Rally?
I'm not a professional estimator but that doesn't look like 60gs to me. I also can't say with certainty that the person who posted that meme is either.


You will forgive me if I have trouble believing estimates coming out of the Trump camp.

 

[rjs330]

You are right, it isn't the gay person's fault, it isn't the woman's fault.
But none of that matters once he is gay bashed and she is raped.
Noone will blame the victims, but unfortunately they are still victims.

It is not merely about offending people.
If you genuinely fear that what you are doing might encourage people to attack you. If you fear it so much that you feel you must wear a gun, or must post online how fearful you are, well, wouldn't it be wiser to be more careful?

Yes, you absolutely have the right to wear a MAGA hat, and you wearing one doesn't give crazies the OK to attack you.
BUT, if you know there are violent crazies in town, and you fear them attacking you. Why wear the hat?
I mean, surely the MAGA hat doesn't represent your identity? Most people don't go around wearing political statements, most people generally keep their political leanings to themselves, not hidden, but just not showing it off either. It's just politics after all. When all is said and done, we all have the same President/Prime Minister, we all have to live by the same laws, and we all get to vote next time around. We don't have to rub up against each other politically in the mean time.

In society we have people from all sorts of ideologies, we don't have to try to distinguish ourselves apart from each other do we?

Anyway, I'm just saying that if the danger is there, then why provoke it? Even if you are in the right, none of that really matters.
For the gay guy, if the town has some violent gay bashers, I'd be suggesting they tone it down and blend in. I know, they shouldn't have to, I know we shouldn't reward threats. But we do need to choose our fights. Is it really worth it to fight over a hat? And for the girl I'd suggest she makes sure she has company, and avoids dark alleys, and avoids getting too drunk and vulnerable, especially if alone.

Now if you do wear the hat, and the haters come and attack you, lets say you pull out your gun and shoot them.
Are you now proud of yourself? People are dead as a result of you wearing the hat. I know it isn't your fault, but it could have been avoided.

For the girl she could walk with a friend or walk in a well lit, well traveled path, or she could carry a gun and walk alone in the dark. One way she is more likely to be unharmed and no-one dies, the other way she is more likely to have to shoot someone. From an idealistic approach, she could say, well I should be allowed to walk where-ever I like, but in reality, it is just wiser to take the more safe path.

You can control yourself, but you can't control them. I really don't see this idealistic (but I'm right and they are wrong) attitude as very wise, it isn't brave either, it's just stubborn.

There are more important things to life.
Personally, my family needs me, my wife needs me, my kids need me. It would be stupid for me to risk that over fighting for my right to wear a hat.

Anyway, I've said all I can say on that. You can make your own choices obviously. I hope you stay safe which ever path you take.

I do think there is some wisdom in what you say. I myself have said it. Of course I am heavily bashed for it and accused by the left of victim blaming. But there is such a thing as wisdom. It's not about the victim.beimg at fault. The bad guys are at fault. Pure and simple. But if a person is wise they don't put themselves in a position to be attacked by bad people.

 

[rjs330]

Why would this surprise you? Do you know for instance that Steele was a trusted friend of the FBI dating back many years and had previously helped them with a number of high profile criminal cases? The only reason Steele stopped cooperating with the FBI was because he felt they were ignoring his information, and later the politicians started using him as a football because they were so desperate to smear the information he'd uncovered.

So what exactly do you think he's going to say that's going to help Trump in any way shape or form? This is a guy who say his career blown to pieces purely because he tried to warn the US intelligence services about information that suggested a serious threat to national security. For that attempted help, his life is now ruined.

He's probably going to say that his dossier was uncooborated when it was used to spy on Trump. It was unsupported yet Comey claimed it's veracity.

 

[rjs330]

It's hypocritical to complain about being taxed on the taxes they have to pay?

Interesting. The left complains all the time about the "loop holes" in the tax system for deductions then when they get one taken away they complain? It's hypocritical.

 

[stevil]

He's probably going to say that his dossier was uncooborated when it was used to spy on Trump. It was unsupported yet Comey claimed it's veracity.

What relevance is the Steele Dossier to anything?

 

[rjs330]

What relevance is the Steele Dossier to anything?

I was responding to Kentonios post.

 

[rjs330]

But identifying behaviours is not "emotions". It's identifying behaviours. And behaviours ARE fact. They are identifiable and often, also quantifiable (depending of course...)

I used to work with emotionally troubled youths. I had to identify their antisocial behaviours as a means to help them understand it and work through those to a place of healing.
My responses were not emotive; they were descriptive.
It's incorrect to confuse the two.

That I understand and I agree that that happens. Part of that has to do with the fact that there are fewer trump supporters than critics on here.

Say what you see; so long as that is borne out in facts and evidence, I don't think ANYONE is going to fault you for that. But you can't assume people's motivation for things. And you have to ensure that there is mutual understanding of facts and evidence.

I'm hoping you can help me explain this: I'm sure you recognize that Trump has inserted himself into the public zeitgeist for, let's say 20 years. He has marketed himself in a specific way to cultivate that image. Not only that but, as a media and business magnate, he has had numerous court challenges and battles that do not reflect well on his ethics and business practices. But the way your argument reads (ie... "preconceived notions"), you make it seem that nobody had ANY idea of what he is like. I would wager, moreso than any other president, Trump's behaviours and personality were known before the election. This argument of "he was never given a chance" falls on deaf ears since he HIMSELF created his beast.
And as I've said, I can be very agreeable to good ideas. But a) I rarely to never see him have ideas I tihnk are good ideas b) His personality won't change.
Lastly, your use of the phrase "can't prove a negative" is quite incorrect. You can prove you are not a jerk on Twitter by going through your tweets and noting that you are not a jerk on your tweeks; ie. the absence of evidence can prove a negative. But again, Trump cannot do that because he makes no effort to try to prove the negative; frankly, negativity is part of his brand.
So here's the thing: Leaders, effective leaders almost always have the same character traits. Lying is not an effective trait of a leader. Misrepresenting reality is not an effective leader. Poor communication is not an effective leader. Depending on your take on the situation, his inauguration had at least one of those three issues come up. Trump critics would argue three and his supporters, at BEST, would end up arguing the third one ("he was talking about online presence" though that is a really, REALLY generous understanding of his word choice in my view).

Again, if Trump makes no effort to try to prove us wrong, why does it behove us to change our opinion of him?
Has his behaviour changed a LOT as president? Cause I don't see that.

For this, I have just one question:
Tell me how tyrannical leadership is a GOOD thing in a democracy LostMarbels. I
Too many of his tweets make him look like an absolute fool for the rest of his tweets to be redeemable. Announcing major policy changes in 140 characters is a strategy designed to connect with simpletons and fools. It seems he too often tries to solve problems with his very, very few tools instead of listening to people with moer knowledge than him (another sign of a poor leader).

I agree with the tweets thing. A LOT of us conservatives wish he would stop. And many have encouraged him to. But he won't. Too bad.

 

[LostMarbels]

Gotta say, I'm realy enjoying your responses. I appreciate the civil conversation.

But identifying behaviours is not "emotions". It's identifying behaviours. And behaviours ARE fact. They are identifiable and often, also quantifiable (depending of course...)

I worked with addictions and some sex offenders. Behaviours are subjective and not dependent on emotion. Behavior can also be random or become a trait, such as a learned behavioral trait. A smoker absentmindedly flicking a pen as if it were a cigaret that needed to be 'ashed' for example. But, both emotion and actions are independent of logic or fact.

You can place a trulatula in a 4 foot thick bullet proof glass box that a .50 cal could not penetrate in the middle of a room, and some people would be too terrified to enter the room. Emotion overrides logic causing irrational behavior and impairs judgement as much so as intoxication. A Person in severe emotional duress can even become manic, obsessed, violent, terrified, confused or even suicidal. Emotion can even make someone insane, or snap. A loving father and husband can break during emotional distress and kill his family. Just the same way intoxicants could affect someone.

Emotionally charged outlooks of an individual are just as powerful. A severe emotional aversion can literally cause panic, terror, hatred just at the sight of a picture, or hearing the individuals name. Logical thought and judgement are impaired, and the individuals actions will follow suite.

This is what I see in many who oppose Trump. They have a literal severely emotional aversion to Donald Trump. Logic and judgment is impaired.

I'm hoping you can help me explain this: I'm sure you recognize that Trump has inserted himself into the public zeitgeist for, let's say 20 years. He has marketed himself in a specific way to cultivate that image. Not only that but, as a media and business magnate, he has had numerous court challenges and battles that do not reflect well on his ethics and business practices. But the way your argument reads (ie... "preconceived notions"), you make it seem that nobody had ANY idea of what he is like. I would wager, moreso than any other president, Trump's behaviours and personality were known before the election. This argument of "he was never given a chance" falls on deaf ears since he HIMSELF created his beast.

If his actions are not part of his administration, and not criminal they have no bearing in this situation.

Lastly, your use of the phrase "can't prove a negative" is quite incorrect. You can prove you are not a jerk on Twitter by going through your tweets and noting that you are not a jerk on your tweeks; ie. the absence of evidence can prove a negative. But again, Trump cannot do that because he makes no effort to try to prove the negative; frankly, negativity is part of his brand.

You cannot prove worth to those who already refuse to attribute value. WWII... a Jew going before a Nazi might receive 'mercy' but is after all 'still just a Jew' in the Nazis mind. That individual still has no worth. A good example of this is in the movie Schindler's list. Where a well educated Jew who was a foreman, questioned her superiors about the foundations of a building. Told them it needed to be rebuilt or the building will fall and kill the troops inside. They inspected it and found out she was correct, and the order was given to tear is down and rebuild it. Summarily, she was knelt down, and shot in the head for speaking to her Nazi commander.

Good acts, from individuals attributed no worth, hold no value, earning them nothing.

Tell me how tyrannical leadership is a GOOD thing in a democracy LostMarbels.

I honestly believe this is a mindset and not even based in logic.

 

[stevil]

I was responding to Kentonios post.

Yes, I understand, I wasn't calling you out for being off topic.

It's just that, as interesting and concerning as the Dossier is, it doesn't really have any relevance to the investigation, other than providing additional allegations that were hopefully looked into.

My assumption is that the SC investigation looked at these allegations and sorted out the veracity of them where possible. The dossier was making allegations but wasn't (in itself) presenting the evidence behind those allegations.

But this is a moot point. The SC report stated that they had insufficient evidence to press criminal charges against people in the Trump campaign.

But what relevancy the Dossier has now, I don't know. Why are people still talking about it?

 

[LostMarbels]

I understand it can be difficult to respond to several conversations within a thread.

Thank you.

The reason it probably feels like people "swarm" is because you post strongly worded, yet unsupported and illogical claims.

I post in a definitive stance. I post that way so there is no questioning where I stand. I am not wishy washy. Not trying to be offensive.​

Drawing large crowds doesn't have bearing on approval numbers

Sure... I'm sure this was a very successful movie on DVD and he has an aspiring career. The amount of tickets he sold doesn't have any bearing on his approval or how the public views him.

"The left" isn't in power. Antifa doesn't support those in power.

Antifa associates themselves with the left. The left doesn't associate themselves with Antifa. Antifa represents a tiny, tiny fraction of "the left".

Let me be blunt, who cares if liberals/left is in power? They still have the support of a internationally declared terrorist organisation that is bombing conservative political offices, and attacking conservative voters in several nations across the world.

 

[LostMarbels]

What relevance is the Steele Dossier to anything?

Connections. Steel, Weiner, Strokz, among others, and the midyear exam.

 

[stevil]

Connections. Steel, Weiner, Strokz, among others, and the midyear exam.

That's as clear as mud.

 

[LostMarbels]

That's as clear as mud.

And that is part of my contention. How are we having a conversation about the OP topic if you do not know about midyear exam or, crossfire hurricane , and their relations to the Steele dossier?

 

[stevil]

And that is part of my contention. How are we having a conversation about the OP topic if you do not know about midyear exam or, crossfire hurricane , and their relations to the Steele dossier?

We have moved well beyond the original topic.
We are no longer assessing what Mueller meant when he said "If we had confidence that Trump did not commit a crime, we would have said so"

If we are now going to talk about the Steel dossier, we would have to establish whether it is something worth even talking about.

It certainly alleged some very troubling claims about collaboration between people in the Trump campaign and Russians. It also alleged that the Russians were interfering in the US election and trying to help Trump get elected. As well as alleging that the Russians were hacking the DNC.
Many of these claims turned out to be true. It has also been proven that Cohen and Trump both lied in attempts to discredit what was in this dossier.
But ultimately, the collaboration aspect, did not get proven.

But, even given all the above, I fail to see how the dossier remains relevant, remains a talking point.
I understand that Trump, his administration and his loyal Attorney General are now investigating the origins of the Russia interference and the Trump Campaign collaboration investigation.
But that has nothing to do with the Steel Dossier, as it is proven that the investigation started before the intelligence agencies received the Dossier.

What the Hillary -email server thing has to do with this, I have no idea. That was investigated and found to be nothing criminal and was over and done with before the Republicans took office.

 

[rjs330]

Yes, I understand, I wasn't calling you out for being off topic.

It's just that, as interesting and concerning as the Dossier is, it doesn't really have any relevance to the investigation, other than providing additional allegations that were hopefully looked into.

My assumption is that the SC investigation looked at these allegations and sorted out the veracity of them where possible. The dossier was making allegations but wasn't (in itself) presenting the evidence behind those allegations.

But this is a moot point. The SC report stated that they had insufficient evidence to press criminal charges against people in the Trump campaign.

But what relevancy the Dossier has now, I don't know. Why are people still talking about it?

I think they are looking into the spying on the Trump campaign and the warrants that we're obtained based upon the dossier. The warrants may have been obtained illegally if the dossier was used as the support document for those warrants.

 

[stevil]

I think they are looking into the spying on the Trump campaign and the warrants that we're obtained based upon the dossier. The warrants may have been obtained illegally if the dossier was used as the support document for those warrants.

I thought it was established that no spying ever occurred.

I understand there have been informal allegations by Trump and some mention of "spying" by Barr, but noone has stated what lead them to think that spying has occurred. i.e. no evidence presented, no reasoning presented either. Just an allegation from thin air.
Is this valid criteria to start a formal investigation on? Seems worse justification than the Dossier itself.

BTW, are they claiming the Russian investigation was started by the Dossier, or are they talking about specific warrants?

 

[Sparagmos]

I think they are looking into the spying on the Trump campaign and the warrants that we're obtained based upon the dossier. The warrants may have been obtained illegally if the dossier was used as the support document for those warrants.

But we know it wasn’t. We’ve known that for a long time now.

 

[rjs330]

I thought it was established that no spying ever occurred.

I understand there have been informal allegations by Trump and some mention of "spying" by Barr, but noone has stated what lead them to think that spying has occurred. i.e. no evidence presented, no reasoning presented either. Just an allegation from thin air.
Is this valid criteria to start a formal investigation on? Seems worse justification than the Dossier itself.

BTW, are they claiming the Russian investigation was started by the Dossier, or are they talking about specific warrants?

I think they are talking about specific warrants.

 

[rjs330]

But we know it wasn’t. We’ve known that for a long time now.

I don't think so. It's my understanding that warrants were issued based upon an unverified dossier. There is a document that has to be signed by the FBI saying that what they are presenting is true and accurate. But they never did anything to verify or cooborate that dossier.

 

[rjs330]

I thought it was established that no spying ever occurred.

I understand there have been informal allegations by Trump and some mention of "spying" by Barr, but noone has stated what lead them to think that spying has occurred. i.e. no evidence presented, no reasoning presented either. Just an allegation from thin air.
Is this valid criteria to start a formal investigation on? Seems worse justification than the Dossier itself.

BTW, are they claiming the Russian investigation was started by the Dossier, or are they talking about specific warrants?

Well, spying occurred. That we know, whether or not there was any wrong doing in it all is a matter that's being investigated. We won't know the answer to that until the investigation is over.