Numark3

Since I am still unaware of what he is arguing about, I'm going to go ahead and say it wasn't sound (we agreed and he is just bewildered I don't really care about the topic or find it troubling). I'm more than aware that you and a few others have fun being ridiculous and have fun with some insults. I honestly don't mind it and think its entertaining too

What arguments? That we both agree on the substance but I said I’m not actively troubled by it because it doesn’t make my list of things I really care about? How in the world have you demonstrated that my opinion (that’s not an argument under any definition) doesn’t hold up? I am actually interested in what in the world you are going to say... ill gladly debate your nonsense if I knew what you what actually arguing about. And difficult problems? This isn't complicated on any level, logically, legally, ethically, etc. I'd hate to see how you describe a type of problem that is remotely challenging.

Huh? I didn't claim I was on a moral high ground and was just joking about his use of italics. He can call me stupid as much as he wants, you can call me a pansy, and I can chuckle at the irony you whining like a little soft B word that there are too many thin-skinned people. So, yea, boyst, don't act like a whiny pansy to prove others are little pansies (seriously, me saying the word insult set you off like that?). I know this may be tough to hear, but there isn't anything anyone can do here to insult me...its a message board. I think my high stressed job puts me through the wringer more than a nonsensical takeittotasker and boyst62.

Idk, he seems better than every name being thrown out for the dems...

Whatever you say boss.

The rule of law is extremely broad, and certain parts of it care about a lot.* For example. And me thinking an overly broad investigation against the president, triggered by bias and politics isn’t the same as thinking there is a conspiracy. I’ll read mueller’s “report” in detail and see what he has to say. Even if it has bad intentions and is wildly inappropriate, I think the “report” will be able to be judged objectively. I'll add. The abuse of the law, expansion of the rules, playing dirty with the rules, is so common to me I just don't mind it. In some circumstances I enjoy it.

Use italics less. Or spice up your insults with bold or something. I think it’s funny that even though I agree with your opinion (to a degree, at least) you think it’s naive that I’m not actively troubled by the investigation. Sorry, it doesn’t make my list of things to get angry about. You have to be realistic. You can only have a enough passion/energy to get riled up on so many things. This just isn’t one of them for me. I can say it’s wrong though and that I am against it. Though I think you’ve over-broadened my view to the rule of law and government subversion though. Oh, who wouldn’t want to see that!? I’m watching sopranos currently and any whacking is getting a thumbs up from me

What? That I can be comfortable with some things I find wrong instead of being upset? Get a grip. If we made a list of 100 terrible things going on in the world, I doubt you are actively getting upset over each them. Dangerous and stunning? Go back to drama class.

But you understand, for pro-choice people, these laws are representative of progression. The cheers are for that, not actively cheering about aborting fetuses. IMO of course

big or lil'?

I don't disagree with what you are saying. I think as a general principle, what you said about allowing the government to do whatever it wants in an investigation is wrong (as in ethically/morally/philosophically/etc wrong, not that what you are saying is wrong!). It is just this isn't an issue that bothers me much, though I get your view. Not every bad or wrong thing bothers me, that's all.

I would never cheer the law, though I am in favor of it. I think, if you are actually trying to understand the cheering, it is symbolic. The cheering is for women's rights, cheers against laws against women, etc. It isn't for the abortion of fetuses.

I don't think you guys are tracking. It isn't about researching the topic, its the idea of applying what you learn from indictments to a closed-book investigation. I'm sure DR knows all of the available information extremely well. But you need to understand that the facts in the stone stuff, may have zero overlap with potential facts driving a collusion claim against trump. And no offense, but I don't think a bring a toy gun to any legal discussion. The concept of what an indictment is and what you can take from them isn't exactly controversial. And challenging DR? I laughed at a tweet saying a page of an indictment cleared trump of collusion of something (which is laughable). DR can post all he wants about whatever.

You have two themes. One is that reading the details is more helpful than listening to the MSM. I fully agree, and I am not saying you can't useful information from indictments. The second theme is that you are up to date on the minutia and details. My overall point is that you can't be up to date on the inner workings of the investigation, you only know what has been put out there. We don't know what facts or theories they are working on specifically to trump (if any). We can start to cross start off, sure. But because we don't know what facts or legal theories drive their investigation, we can only apply so much of what we know. Saying stuff like "page 4 of the indictment clears trump of Russian collusion) is laughably dumb. I am not trying to be an ass, but reading indictments can only get you so far in analyzing what the investigation on trump is. It is great that you are taking it as far as it lets you, but it can only be so far. Maybe you aren't seeing my main point. Yea you can predict what that vehicle might do. Not what another vehicle, that we have no idea about, is going to do.

Thanks for letting me know reading can be helpful! What I am saying is, in my experience, reading complaints and indictments and predicting investigations can be difficult or near impossible. It’s because they aren’t even a full roadmap, at times, of their case against the person being indicted. With such a large and complex investigation, I wouldn’t dare attempt it here. And if you think any road map from it is “clear,” then you are probably seeing what you want to see. You need to be more aware of the very small snapshot of information you have into the investigation. Again, I doubt there is any collusion. And I haven’t seen anything to suggest there is. But these allegations don’t clear trump of collusion. That’s silly talk.

Sure, but applying it to the strength of a case against trump is silly though. Saying it absolves him, for example, is silly. It’s taking out-of-context allegations and applying them to a different case, that we don’t know anything about.

People analyzing a case’s strength over indictments and criminal complaints are really silly. It’s a complete misunderstanding of the legal system. i doubt there was collusion by trump as well, and they seem to be gunning for a different charge, but come on.

Its a message board, no one is looking foolish...or everyone is. One of those two.

Well maybe try saying something more than essentially “you don’t know what you are talking about and maybe one day you will.” It’s annoying. But I’ve noticed you posting substance in other threads, so fair.

I for some reason thought you were one of several good posters here that you can have discussions with. I can admit when I’m wrong. At least you’re filed to the nonsensical meme-poster instead of the unhinged like the_dude.

Great substance man and discussion. Speaking in vague “I know but you don’t” terms is always a hallmark of a solid opinion.

How is closing the government down to get funding for a wall, and the opening thing government without a wall a win? Sincerely? the whole national emergency plan will get wrecked by courts... this whole thing has has been a joke by both sides. Saying Mexico was going to pay for the wall was a joke. Being willing to shut down the government for over a month and harm lives was a joke. And both sides refusing to strike a compromise (fund some walls) once there was a shutdown was a joke. And this whole thing isn’t about winning and losing, what’s the matter with all of you? If it opens with a wall, who cares if trump won. If it doesn’t, who cares dems won. The country has lost over this stupid shutdown.

I long to nail a doomsday prediction. everyone: keep your heads up on February 10th, I’ve heard the birds are restless.

I’m happy this thread has turned into a math discussion.

Yea I think that’s the difference in opinion for sure. I don’t think it’s a charade and others do, that’s fair.