US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[ChaimMoskowitz]

He is jumping on your use of the word collusion instead of coordination even though it has no bearing to the conversation

Collusion has no bearing on the SC mandate. A simple fact you seem not to understand.

[gingyguy]

Collusion has no bearing on the SC mandate. A simple fact you seem not to understand.

in case you were confused most people here are using the word that the media is using - collusion- to describe the word coordination which is used in the mandate.

sometimes i wonder if @ChaimMoskowitz  is just saying things he doesnt really believe just to rile up the masses..... i prefere to say that rather than its his true beliefs

[ChaimMoskowitz]

in case you were confused most people here are using the word that the media is using - collusion- to describe the word coordination which is used in the mandate.

The media, not Trump?
I was simply pointing out the SC has been successful so far with the mandate they were given. This is how this conversation started.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

This guy is relentless in hammering the president on his #fakenews.
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1040804652151959552

[aygart]

The media, not Trump?
I was simply pointing out the SC has been successful so far with the mandate they were given. This is how this conversation started.

And whenever anyone points out that ancillary convictions is not a measure of success you just deflect that legally he can prosecute them which does not have any bearing.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

And whenever anyone points out that ancillary convictions is not a measure of success you just deflect that legally he can prosecute them which does not have any bearing.

Just shows you don't understand the mandate. These serious convictions are one of the three main points of his mandate.
You want to argue the SC should not have been appointed in the first place go right ahead.
You want to argue the SC is on a witch hunt, not following its mandate or not producing results then you are being dishonest again. The facts show differently.

[aygart]

Here we go again deflecting by pretending you have no clue what anyone is saying

Just shows you don't understand the mandate. These serious convictions are one of the three main points of his mandate.
You want to argue the SC should not have been appointed in the first place go right ahead.
You want to argue the SC is on a witch hunt, not following its mandate or not producing results then you are being dishonest again. The facts show differently.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Here we go again deflecting by pretending you have no clue what anyone is saying

You are saying the SC is about collision. That is wrong. You either don't understand the SC mandate or are being dishonest. Please bring facts as I have instead of your Hannity talk.

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Racist trash

Lot of that lately.

[aygart]

You are saying the SC is about collision. That is wrong. You either don't understand the SC mandate or are being dishonest. Please bring facts as I have instead of your Hannity talk.

Maybe you can explain in your own words what you think it is "about". The mandate may be broad enough to include items that are not what it is really "about".

[Yammer]

I am not arguing anything. I am stating facts to what the mandate actually says,

Ok...

The media, not Trump?
I was simply pointing out the SC has been successful so far with the mandate they were given. This is how this conversation started.

1. It has only been successful with
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;

Not with
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

2. Those indictments are exactly what it says it is...it's not the reason nor the beef for launching this investigation, so I'm not sure how you consider that successful. (And again I'm not talking about whether it's was right or wrong to launch the SC)

[ChaimMoskowitz]

Maybe you can explain in your own words what you think it is "about". The mandate may be broad enough to include items that are not what it is really "about".

Read the mandate and don't try to change it. That is exactly what it is about.
Every person AFAIK that has pleaded or found guilty was part of the Trump campaign. 100% covered by the mandate. So I fail to see any witch hunt at this point.

[aygart]

Read the mandate and don't try to change it. That is exactly what it is about.
Every person AFAIK that has pleaded or found guilty was part of the Trump campaign. 100% covered by the mandate. So I fail to see any witch hunt at this point.

Maybe you can explain in your own words what you think it is "about". The mandate may be broad enough to include items that are not what it is really "about".

[aygart]

Ok...

1. It has only been successful with
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;

Not with
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

2. Those indictments are exactly what it says it is...it's not the reason nor the beef for launching this investigation, so I'm not sure how you consider that successful. (And again I'm not talking about whether it's was right or wrong to launch the SC)

But mandate..

[ChaimMoskowitz]

1. It has only been successful with
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation;

Not with
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals
associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

2. Those indictments are exactly what it says it is...it's not the reason nor the beef for launching this investigation, so I'm not sure how you consider that successful. (And again I'm not talking about whether it's was right or wrong to launch the SC)

Here is the whole problem with yours and others logic. You are looking at the mandate (SC job) as to find individuals (including Trump) criminally guilty of crimes that will result in Trump getting thrown out of office. If they don't then in your mind it is a failure. That is not their mandate (job)!!! What is so hard to understand?

[Yammer]

Here is the whole problem with yours and others logic. You are looking at the mandate (SC job) as to find individuals (including Trump) criminally guilty of crimes that will result in Trump getting thrown out of office. If they don't then in your mind it is a failure. That is not their mandate (job)!!! What is so hard to understand?

1. "IF"  individuals (including Trump) criminally guilty of crimes that will result in Trump getting thrown out of office. Whether they did or didn't. It doesn't have to be guilty to warrant the SC investigation.(no opinion here again)

A SC is created when there is a national crisis that can't be dealt with via the regular justice system. The additionals on the mandate are to make it easier the SC to work.

But to say that that IS the mandate of the SC because is on the paper is without logic..

[ChaimMoskowitz]

But to say that that IS the mandate of the SC because is on the paper is without logic..

That is what is called being backed up with facts instead of bias.

Here is a question for everyone. If after say two years the SC issues a report that says there was no links or cooperation between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Was the SC a success and did their job? Simple yes or no answer.

[Yammer]

That is what is called being backed up with facts instead of bias.

Here is a question for everyone. If after say two years the SC issues a report that says there was no links or cooperation between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. Was the SC a success and did their job? Simple yes or no answer.

1. Not sure why you calling that bias...
2. Yes

But that's still not to say that was a valid reason for creating a special counsel, was that the was bias in the process, or bias was the reason that triggered it etc..(again I'm not saying that those allegations are true... Just something that will definitely be looked at at that point)

[Yammer]

1. Not sure why you calling that bias...
2. Yes

But that's still not to say that was a valid reason for creating a special counsel, was that the was bias in the process, or bias was the reason that triggered it etc..(again I'm not saying that those allegations are true... Just something that will definitely be looked at at that point)

I just want to ask you one question, because I I was too young to remember the details,

During the Clinton special counsel was there issues like these clouding over the actual investigation? That would give Clinton political ammunition or grievances that the special counsel was biased?

FYI its talk to text

[ChaimMoskowitz]

1. Not sure why you calling that bias...
2. Yes

But that's still not to say that was a valid reason for creating a special counsel, was that the was bias in the process, or bias was the reason that triggered it etc..(again I'm not saying that those allegations are true... Just something that will definitely be looked at at that point)

2 - Then we are in agreement. The Trumpsters will only agree with us if it goes in their favor.

I am not arguing the point if we should have had a SC in the first place. The fact is they are following the job (won't use mandate) they were given. That is all we can ask for.