All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

In all fairness, most people here are uninformed about the climate debate. Mouthing agreement to climate change and proposed solutions isn't what makes someone "informed."

You support a president who thinks it's a Chinese hoax. You link to climate denier websites. Put a sock in it.

Reminds me of the Christian woman in Dawkins' documentary. He showed a species in between two primate ancestors. Her answer: You've made two new gaps!

[pErvinalia]

Roger Stone’s Arrest Was Appropriate, Not Heavy-Handed

...
At least to my knowledge, Stone has no criminal record and is charged primarily with a white collar-ish sort of crime—lying to Congress. Those two factors might suggest that prosecutors forego an arrest and hand him a summons to turn himself in, as is typical in white-collar cases.

Stone was also charged with witness tampering, a crime that strikes at the heart of the judicial process. There are numerous allegations in the indictment of Stone urging others to lie. Those urgings clearly run afoul of the witness tampering statute. And, if that’s all there was to it, a summons might be the way to go.

But there is a more compelling reason to arrest him. The devil is in the details. Read, for instance, page 20 of the indictment, where prosecutors note that Stone emailed one witness and called him a “rat” and a “stoolie” and threatened to take that witness’s dog away from him. In another email that same day to that same witness, according to the indictment, Stone wrote “I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die [expletive].”

Law enforcement simply does not hand a summons to someone who threatens to kill a witness and trust that person to act responsibly with it. No conscientious prosecutor would think a summons appropriate there, or think that a threat to kill a witness is simply what targets of grand jury investigations routinely do.

The witness tampering alleged here is more than just someone asking another, “pretty please,” to lie. Rather, it includes a death threat against a witness: “Prepare to die [expletive].”

Was Stone kidding? Maybe. Was it hyperbole? Perhaps. He can explain that after his arrest.

Arresting Stone was lawful, appropriate and fully justified by his own words and conduct.

Chuck Rosenberg is a former U.S. attorney, senior FBI official and chief of the Drug Enforcement Administration.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/roger-stone ... avy-handed

So yet again 42 doesn't tell the whole story.

[Forty Two]

It's not my beloved Republican Party. Many of them have some odd beliefs. However, to sit there and pretend the Democrats don't deny science too, well, that's just stupid. They do. There are Democrat anti-vaxxers, Democrat anti-GMO-ers, and the like. Democrats show just swallow whatever nonsense claims are thrown their way because they sound good. Just look at all the bullshit sold in the social sciences. https://www.city-journal.org/html/real- ... 14782.html

[Forty Two]

In all fairness, most people here are uninformed about the climate debate. Mouthing agreement to climate change and proposed solutions isn't what makes someone "informed."

You support a president who thinks it's a Chinese hoax. You link to climate denier websites. Put a sock in it.

Nobody supports every position their candidate holds. Tell me who you'd support for President, and let's discuss. Fuck off with that idiocy.

And, if I "linked" to a climate denier website (I'm not sure what you're referring to), the context will make your dishonest characterization obvious. Go fuck yourself.

[pErvinalia]

No YOU!

[Seabass]

Go fuck yourself.

[Sean Hayden]

So yet again 42 doesn't tell the whole story.

Why wasn't Fox at Stone's house during the raid? Surely they would have loved to cover it. --right?

--//--

Anyway, I'm tired of the politics man. I was genuinely just peeved that anyone would assume that the feds had done anything exceptional. I had no idea that I was arguing against the party line. I didn't know for example that Republican leaders came out saying exactly this shit. Why would I? Unlike those who claim the media is lying and eat it up regularly anyway, I don't. I thought they believed it was excessive force. Silly me. It turns out they're just spewing the party line.

[JimC]

Cunt wrote:

But my expressing my limited understanding was somehow a trigger to you, and you have to attack me for being uninformed.

Not exactly. I was attacking you for your insistence that you could contribute anything worthwhile to a debate on climate change while admitting you are uninformed...

In all fairness, most people here are uninformed about the climate debate. Mouthing agreement to climate change and proposed solutions isn't what makes someone "informed."

When you use the phrase "Mouthing agreement to climate change", you are casting doubt on whether you actually accept the science. You have previously denied being a denier, but you tend to backslide...

Having said that, I accept that, once the basic science and need for action of some sort is agreed on, then no political grouping has an automatic lock on "proposed solutions"

As for being informed vs uninformed re the science, it is of course a spectrum. Actual practicing climate scientists are at one end, ill-educated deniers at the other. I class myself at least in the middle. I have a science degree, I've read widely on the topic, and I taught aspects of environmental science for many years. When Cunt says something utterly disconnected with the facts of world energy usage, then his opinions on the matter become unimportant.

[Svartalf]

In all fairness, most people here are uninformed about the climate debate. Mouthing agreement to climate change and proposed solutions isn't what makes someone "informed."

You support a president who thinks it's a Chinese hoax. You link to climate denier websites. Put a sock in it.

Reminds me of the Christian woman in Dawkins' documentary. He showed a species in between two primate ancestors. Her answer: You've made two new gaps!

must admit I never got this "god in the gaps" approach... maybe it's good we haven"f found the missing link, they would only see more gaps for their noxious ideology to seep through... just thinking of that makes me wonder is my 1-4% Neanderthal genetic material is accompanied by any Denisovan one.

[Cunt]

Wish I could stop listening to asshole Trump like Cunt stopped listening to politically correct NPR.

Now you're on to something!

Slow the playback to half speed and you'll find yourself enjoying 'Drunk Trump'.

Not exactly. I was attacking you for your insistence that you could contribute anything worthwhile to a debate on climate change while admitting you are uninformed...

No-one less rareified than you should be permitted to write about such a holy subject, in a public forum. Is that what you are pitching?

Your vestments are on crooked.

[Joe]

Are you still relying on circumstantial evidence to support your assertions about the "collusion" between CNN and the FBI, or has some hard evidence surfaced?

Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, like when a trout is in the milk. Henry David Thoreau.

I'm surprised that you might find something to question regarding reliance on circumstantial evidence to support the assertion of "collusion" between Person A and Person B. At least circumstantial evidence is evidence. We've been talking about other allegations of "collusion" for two years now without even circumstantial evidence offered - that seems to be believable to many simply because of 'smoke' and personal disdain.

Well, I still don't consider poets to be authorities on evidence, so I'll take that as a no.

Why wouldn't you take it as a "yes?" Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 528 S.W.2d 703, 706 (Ky.1975) (quoting Henry David Thoreau, the court states that “ ‘some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk’ ”); Hankins v State, 646 S.W.2d 191 (Tex. 1981) (same, citing persuasiveness of circumstantial evidence).

I don't see why your're surprised at my question when I expressed my reservations about your reasoning point by point in an earlier post.

Perhaps you missed it?

That's called a scoop? What was the scoop? The quote from the reporter at issue was that he noticed that the grand jury met on Thursday rather than Friday. Would you glean from that the need to jump on a plane and be at Roger Stone's house at 5am with a full camera crew? I doubt you would. It didn't clue anyone else - no other investigative journalists or reporters -- either. This reporter was a GENIUS! He saw the grand jury meet on Thursday, and that meant to him that there would be SWAT bust the next morning at Roger Stone's house.

CNN's report was from the sidewalk - but the entire street was blocked off. Nobody (else) was allowed there.

15 agents to raid a congressman's office? Note how that's noteworthy because of its rarity. One of my points, exactly.

Oh yes, my friend, that was a motherfucking scoop! When was the last time one of the major news networks got video of an FBI arrest in the biggest ongoing investigation in the US? I sure hope "What was the scoop?" was just a rhetorical question.

As for your incredulity that CNN could possibly have figured this out on their own, you clearly didn't read CNN's account of how they did it. Too bad, because your description of what happened is completely wrong. The only thing you got right was the time they arrived, beating the FBI by an hour, which accounts for why they got the film before the FBI moved them back.

I guess you should have followed the link I gave you and saved yourself some egg on the face. Their explanation is perfectly reasonable.

Sean already crushed your SWAT bust objection, so that's dismissible.

So what's left? Ah yes, Thoreau. You've convinced me to reassess my opinion of poets vis-a-vis evidence, but I'll still take it as a "no." He was right that some circumstantial evidence is strong, but this isn't.

[Hermit]

It's not my beloved Republican Party. Many of them have some odd beliefs. However, to sit there and pretend the Democrats don't deny science too, well, that's just stupid. They do. There are Democrat anti-vaxxers, Democrat anti-GMO-ers, and the like. Democrats show just swallow whatever nonsense claims are thrown their way because they sound good. Just look at all the bullshit sold in the social sciences. https://www.city-journal.org/html/real- ... 14782.html

Mister Whatabout strikes again.

Republicans are a great deal more likely to deny science than Democrats. It would be interesting, for example, to compare the percentage of global warming denialists among Republicans with the percentage of global warming denialists among Democrats, then do the same with people in each group who deny evolution.

[Tero]

"Together we can break decades of political stalemate. We can bridge old divisions, heal old wounds, build new coalitions, forge new solutions and unlock the extraordinary promise of America's future. The decision is ours to make," Trump will say, according to an early excerpt of his speech.

MAGA

[JimC]

Wish I could stop listening to asshole Trump like Cunt stopped listening to politically correct NPR.

Now you're on to something!

Slow the playback to half speed and you'll find yourself enjoying 'Drunk Trump'.

Not exactly. I was attacking you for your insistence that you could contribute anything worthwhile to a debate on climate change while admitting you are uninformed...

No-one less rareified than you should be permitted to write about such a holy subject, in a public forum. Is that what you are pitching?

Your vestments are on crooked.

I'm not rarefied, and it's not a holy subject.

Simply, unlike you, I (and many others on this forum) understand the science and have studied the subject.

[Tero]

Pulling out of an arms treaty is just stupid. Almost as stupid as pulling out of Stormy with no condom on.