Sure. You'll be the imaginary friend of an imaginary boy, which makes you twice removed from reality. Totally a happy place because of it.

Is this a fallacy though or just a false premisse?

While unemployment is at record lows for black americans, income has dropped and income disparity has increased under Trump for them. So better off if measured by having a job or not, worse off by the other standards.

Good news and kudos to all involved in the successful mission to remove a truly evil human from this Earth. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Murder and assasination is always good news when it's the enemy. For everyone to be consistent, next time a bunch of terrorists blow up "the enemy" in the US or Europe we should all just celebrate!

Wooptiedo. 3 more months of insecurity.

That describes the process of how they went about deciding whether to indict someone as the following paragraphs goes on the describe. You're pulling that paragraph out of context. Mueller never got to the point in deciding whether there was sufficient evidence to indict Trump as he had repeatedly said and testified because the OLC opinion was that a sitting president could not be indicted.

He had said that if it was clear Trump had not committed a crime they would've said so. So Mueller provides facts that do not give him reason to say he's innocent but he had not analysed whether those facts would lead to sufficient grounds to indict as indictment was impossible in any case.

Do I have solid evidence that this charade was a malicious lie? No—we will find out soon enough. But we do have massive amounts of evidence that vast subsections of the population were duped into believing Trump colluded with Russia. Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia? — NOS4A2

That's not what I'm asking. What part is the hoax, so what's the lie and what is, according to you, the truth? Who peddled that lie?

There is no crime for collusion. That’s the hilarious part about it. — NOS4A2

I know, as evidenced by countless posts before that we even exchanged so I assumed, since you insist on using the term, you'd take that into account. Instead I get a bullshit "gotcha" reaction.

Like here

I’ve already gone over the Mueller report, my criticisms of the investigation ad nauseum, and you or someone else simply dismissed them. I refuse to do it again. Your finger-wagging about my choice of words is just that: finger-wagging. — NOS4A2

We're not talking about the report, we're talking about it being a hoax. What part is a deliberate lie in the process that makes you qualify it as a hoax without, as you say, any real evidence? Your qualification was in reply to the investigation having happened in the first place. So was Mueller duped too? What's the hoax and who is the hoaxer?

Did you believe Trump colluded with Russia? — NOS4A2

Yes I think he did but doubt it would reach the bar of beyond a reasonable doubt that would lead to a conviction. I do believe that he obstructed justice as described in the Mueller report. Both are neither here nor there because the evidentiary rules don't really apply to impeachment.

Do I have solid evidence that this charade was a malicious lie? — NOS4A2

What part is the charade? That's the 3rd time I'm asking and you're failing to answer. Are you saying no investigation should have been held? You don't believe the DNC was hacked? What part is it? These blanket denials and distrust of institutions are not informative at all. There's no substance to your replies.

So then why do you uncritically and blindly parrot the CIA and FBI? The problem is now they and their Russian investigation, their spying on American citizens, are under criminal investigation. You know this but still continue to parrot them. Are you even nervous at the prospect you’ve been duped? Maybe now, after years of this, it’s time to think critically? — NOS4A2

Because what they say with regard to the DNC hack is corroborated by other foreign intelligence agencies. In particular the Dutch as they hacked the hackers and saw them hacking the DNC server live.

Bear in mind the Mueller's investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence to indict - that is not a proof of innocence, nor even a proof that an investigation was unwarranted. — Relativist

Where did it conclude that?

After it was established Russians hacked the DNC and Papadopoulos mispoke about Trump campaign members meeting Russians the special counsel was mandated to investigate. What part is a lie? Where's the hoax? Who is or are the hoaxers?

As usual, you didn't answer any of my questions.

Read Mueller's mandate. Then which facts are you disputing from the report? Did it or did it not establish that people from the Trump campaign had contact with Russians? Shouldn't that be investigated when it was already proved Russians hacked the DNC? What exactly were people led to believe was a lie in this according to you?

Putting it differently, if people are aware a gang shot a rival gang and you would have regular contact with those shooters, what part would be a hoax if you are subsequently investigated by the police?

A hoax is a deliberate fabrication, what did Mueller make up? Or who else did that if we're not telling about him? Rod Rosenstein when he signed the mandate?

Again, let me rephrase, what the fuck are you talking about?

Interestingly the threat to pull the bill emanated from No10 during the PM's speech in parliament introducing the bill. He hadn't mentioned it and then did later on. Presumably when someone had told him about it during his speech. Proving that Cummings is pulling the strings. — Punshhh

Or it was planned to go down that way. Doesn't seem to prove anything one way or another.

So, Hillary approaches politics in a totally pragmatic way just to get power. Wasn't it your earlier complaint that insisting morals play a role in politics is naïve?

Not that I really want to defend her. It just seems a bit inconsistent coming from you.

I am processing, searching for the role morality plays in a military operation and I am having a hard time finding it. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

There's 4000 years of history about the morality of war and when a war is just and when it is fought in a just way. If morality plays no role in military operation then what were the Nuremberg trials about?

Anyway, what is the ERG logic for not wanting a trade deal with the EU? — Tim3003

What national or domestic constituency does it appeal to? I suspect there's your answer.

It's like that serie Lost all over again. It long stopped being entertaining, is confusing for everyone involved, including its original architects but you have to sit it out because you already committed to the previous 5 seasons.

OK. Never mind then. :up:

That's not what "it" refers to. That's a specific interpretation that isn't a necessary conclusion from what he said. So you shouldn't jump to that conclusion.

Look, Trump's quid pro quo was unacceptable but we don't need to "prove" it by reading things into what people say that they in fact didn't say.

What’s abnormal about it in this case it its motivation, which is personal benefit and political gain, not furtherance of the interests of the state. It’s plainly illegal, there’s no question about that. The only question is whether the machinery of government can actually rein in Trump’s aberrant behaviour. I'm hoping, and expecting, that it will. — Wayfarer

Of course, I never said it wasn't. But CCN is misrepresenting what Mulvaney said.

It seems clear to me that he did. From the same exchange:

Mulvaney: "Did he mention to me in past the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely, no question about that. But that's it. That's why we held up the money." — ChrisH

If you read the news reports and you believe them, what did McKinney say yesterday? Well, McKinney said yesterday that he was really upset with the political influence in foreign policy. That was one of the reasons he was so upset about this. And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. — Mulvaney

The "get over it" comment refers to McKinney's reason to be upset. I don't see how you can hear and read this any other way. What do you think "it" refers to in that sentence?

or at least capitalised on the short selling which led to the banking crisis — Punshhh

A bit of a tangent but what makes you say this? We've had a subprime mortgage crisis that started in the US which affected the EU banks in 2007 as well and a subsequent sovereign debt crisis in 2009. I don't see how short selling caused these two banking crises.

I'm objecting to inaccurate reporting. There's enough Fox News out there that we don't need other networks add to the noise.

Mulvaney is making the case that a quid pro quo in foreign policy isn't abnormal; and it isn't. He didn't say "get over it" with regard to the specific case of Trump asking for an investigation in the Democratic server in return for money but to "get over" the fact that (national) politics will affect foreign policy. He referred to McKinney who was "really upset about the political influence on foreign policy". I think there's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo per se.

Let's say Congress had allocated money to Turkey to be paid out in a certain moment and yet Erdogan had a US national locked up. Should Trump spend the money or hold it until the US national is released? I'd hope he'd do the latter. It's about what the quid pro quo is used for, some goals are acceptable, others aren't.

Mulvaney did admit quid pro quo with regard to the investigation of the Democratic server. I don't think that's the impeachable offence though; the impeachable one is asking them to investigate a possible opposing Presidential candidate (at least his son).

I would care if Brexit wasn't the meal they cooked for themselves and NI and Scotland but then are unwilling to toss the shit sandwich in the bin. They tried forcing it on others and those others might decide to go out for dinner instead. Nobody is stopping the English from cancelling dinner and join them in the restaurant. So yeah, pretty much, fuck the English for their self inflicted misery.

That's not what Mulvaney said. He said money is held in abeyance all the time for political reasons and people should get over it that politics will influence foreign policy. That a change from Obama to Trump should mean a difference in foreign policy and that's right.

Sometimes anti Trump people really stop listening and live in their own reality. Just like Trump himself.

What a stupid "principle". If you consider yourself not-British then the exercise of power in British politics is totally awesome when you can directly affect politics in such a way that it will benefit NI and Eire as a whole.

Any other players that can replace the lost DUP votes?

Trump letter to Erdogan

Whut? :rofl:

It simply explains a lot of the blatant nonsense he goes on with, and also the obvious fact that he's consistently sabotaging himself. — Wayfarer

God did it. That simply explains a lot of what's going on. So it must be true.

It speaks to whether he's fit for the office. — 3017amen

His actions do. His mindset, to the extent this cannot be inferred from his actions, are wild guesses. Even psychiatrists will not venture to diagnose someone on his public behaviour or speech so why should we entertain any of it as true when someone does it here in the forum?

Well if Nancy says so it must be true. :roll:

Can you see the part I underlined, fishfry? You can’t separate a child from their parent if no parent is present. I don’t know if any of this is true but politifact is pretty reliable from what I understand. Again, if you can show public records that help to substantiate your version of these events please do so. — praxis

I'm pretty sure when discussing this with @ArguingWAristotleTiff last year that Obama separated kids from the people they were travelling with because they couldn't establish whether they were their parents or not. Mostly done to avoid human trafficking.

It'd be ya'll're (you all are) stupid, not y'all stupid, unless you were going for the African American dialect that truncates the final consonant, but I doubt you're that hip. — Hanover

Hip? 2 unlimited - get ready for this

1991. Dutch.

You're welcome. If you don't want misrepresentation then try to avoid comparing other posters to petrol-doused pyromaniacs playing with matches. I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to interpret that than saying "y'all stupid". What did you mean with it then?

What are these wild guesses about Trump's psyche supposed to accomplish?

Which is just another convoluted way of saying "ya'll stupid".

Most of the disagreement stems from different interpretations of fact.

Hanover and Judaka don't take Maw's comparison of Trump with Hitler seriously, because they don't share the same interpretation. So people are now arguing about the interpretation while the subject really should be the behaviour of Trump that gave rise to such worry that Maw makes the comparison.

I personally think Trump is clearly racist and that it doesn't matter that he is at the same time. As long as he pursues policies the GOP agrees with he will get away with this whole unitary executive nonsense and that basically smells of authoritarianism. But that power is useful if it's exercised on favour of your own agenda. So his border policies were probably informed by his racism/xenophobia but nobody who wants stricter border control really cares that it was.

Can you trust the GOP not to support "worse" policies?

Remain, and break the referendum promise.
Reinstate the border in N. Ireland, and break the N.I treaty.
Unification of Ireland, and break the treaty. — unenlightened

A hard border between NI and the rest of the UK until such time a different solution can be thought of. Or screw the promise, which was made by a previous government any way with regard to an advisory referendum that only proved the voters were hopelessly split on the issue.

I almost wish Boris could negotiate with no-deal really on the table to see what the result would be - maybe with a secret agreement with parliament to stop no deal at the last moment.. — Tim3003

It would make absolutely 0 difference. The EU has four central pillars : freedom of movement, freedom of services, freedom for goods and freedom of capital. No proposal that undermines any of those pillars is going to be acceptable in any way, shape or form.

Why are you spending so many words on this? Your first reaction on pulling troops was in my view misguided as it solely concerned what a failure it constituted for Trump. If that's your first primary point in relation to what happened then I don't think that's the right order of priorities, eg. misguided. It's not such a big deal as you now seem to think it is. That's what I reacted to not the posts after that that you are now bringing up.

That's not what Baden said. There are currently no temporary bans because the rules currently do not allow them. A change in rules could make it possible and Baden did not make the argument that because we do not have them now, we shouldn't in the future.