I guess being naively pedantic is your prerogative. Personally, I consider faulty arguments to be no better than no argument at all. Just empty words pretending to support a point. A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves" in the construction of an argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FallacyJust like I wouldn't consider anything constructed by "faulty" means adequate in serving its purported purpose. Buildings, cars, planes, etc. with faulty construction are more dangerous in that they purport to serve a valid purpose. Yes, a faulty airplane is superficially an airplane, but I wouldn't consider it one worth using or trusting comparable to a validly constructed airplane. If you do, that on you. If the Mueller report were a slam dunk, why didn't the Dems push impeachment following its release? Because most people, Dems and Reps, realized the facts therein did not move the needle of political will.
Here we are, 861 posts in and nobody knows what the damned thing says. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
You keep posting that bs. Lots of people know quite a bit of what it says. They read the redacted version - there's lots of stuff in there. Certainly enough to impeach Trump - and more coming in every day. Maybe, being cowards, they realized that very few people were aware of the facts therein, Barr's tactics having been effective. Remembering, of course, that the facts therein do establish clear and unarguable grounds for impeachment - and that political will does change under pressure from the facts, over time, often. So after a couple of months for those of good will and honest curiosity to read - lots of skimming is ok, it's written to be bulletproof - we see that the Dems are pushing impeachment.
There's an entire US political faction that thinks the meaning of ordinary words is a concern of pedants only. These are the same people who misuse words, as instructed by Republican propaganda - thereby crippling the public discussion of political issues. Ad hominem arguments fulfill their purpose quite often - especially when directed to people for whom words mean whatever seems convenient at the moment. I don't use ad hominem arguments, for good reason. I don't use the invalid "if", either - for similar reasons. Usually (4 of 5 or better) everything after the "if" in a rightwing essay is bullshit - it's another of those constructions derived from genuine intellectual discussion that has mimicked a form without comprehending the role of content.
sculptor said: ↑ Here we are, 861 posts in and nobody knows what the damned thing says. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Gee, Ice If believing that makes you feel better................................................................. Don't let the fact that I think that you are being intentionally delusional slow you down none. It seems that where you lack substance, you fill in the blanks with political prejudice and hope.
No, he's waiting for the others to come 'round. One point of perspective he and I seem to share, though we have different thresholds, has to do with the futility of engaging determined asymmetry. Indeed, it's one of the things that stands out about "not defending" Trump, and other middling, post-edwardian pretenses of clean hands. Stop propping up the inadequate by demanding reality surrender to futility. Honestly, I can recall a couple years ago we had a brief back and forth about Hillary Clinton, and what I've never understood about your and other similar forms is that if you're not part of something, why can you not behave as if you're not? If I ever want to criticize Iceaura about wasting his time on certain people, it's that he's putting too much effort into it, but I mean it differently than you might; rather, I think it's pointless to waste our time on those whose arguments depend on the grand merit of being clueless; at some point, there is no useful purpose to entertaining someone not capable of following his own words from post to post. Eventually, circumstance distills the obvious, that one is either unwilling or unable to communicate appropriately. Seriously, I've watched Iceaura try to communicate through the thickness with various people, here, for years. The difference between him and me at this point is that I'm perfectly willing to dispense with any pretense that certain people anything decent or useful to offer this community, and at this point, continuing to go back and forth with those, as he has, only really feeds others, like youreself, who often act as if they don't want to be supporting something problematic and so can only manage to complain that the remedies aren't perfect. In this case, you happened to complain about the one who is waiting for another to stop making it up as he goes and, furthermore, cease pretending the relationship between his ignorance and the unreliability of his assessments is some sort of fallacious distraction. Sometimes, when one is wrong, one is wrong. There are those, however, who would invest more effort in complaining that it is inappropriate to observe their failures than actually getting a clue about the correct information. We ought not be surprised at a self-interested demand that we ignore such failures, or somehow validate them as appropriate. What makes less sense is, well, you.
Here is what Sculptor (and the majority of the tribe here - Schmelzer for sure, others by immediate inference) does not believe about the Mueller report: No telling what parts of that are beyond belief - that anyone has read it, that they learned anything, that there is anything to learn in it - but as long as the disbelievers continue to have not read it, we can assign their various doubts and assessments to the appropriate category. Needs a name. Lessee - firmly held and defended, aligned perfectly with the latest US rightwing corporate media feed, no visible base in fact, event, or circumstance - - - - time for a nap. Also argument and evidence, when appropriate - those aren't my blanks, after all. Or my political prejudices. And my hope? That's a first, from the tribal circle jerk. I admit to some obviously useless curiosity - whatever can one of these guys think I "hope"? Too bad there's no way to find out. No problem. I won't be worrying about "thinking" until I see an accurate paraphrase, reference, or reply to, something I post. Or something Mueller wrote, in his report. That would count too.
sculptor said: ↑ Here we are, 861 posts in and nobody knows what the damned thing says. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? And, the fact that no one here actually knows what is in that report doesn't matter to you? ok curiouser and curiouser
Those who have read the redacted report often know what they have read. Some are here. It's written in English, after all, and not in any great complexity of style. It's just a report on some stuff that happened, not an arcane mystery of revelation.
Whenever iceaura makes a claim about me, it is a lie. 1.) I have never made any claims about how many people know what is inside. 2.) I have no doubt that there is a lot of stuff inside. Simply there is, according to the claims made by iceaura (and even more that he has not claimed) nothing inside which would be interesting for me.
[1/2] No, but you really should try explaining the non sequitur. Really? You need that again? Okay: • Your constant failure to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique is its own self-inflicted denigration. (#813↑) • Your arguments depend on the merit of pretending your own ignorance. (ibid.) • As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance. (#818↑) • ... the problem with your argument is that it's excrement. (ibid.) • As I pointed out ... your argument relies on ignorance, or, at the very least, an extraordinary pretense thereof. (#843↑) • Part of the problem with your perpetual thoughtless partisan toeing of lines is that you don't seem to know what you're on about; it's not so much that your understanding of history is awry, but, rather, that you don't seem to have any substantial comprehension of the history your arguments pretend to address. (ibid.) • Or, as I noted last month, the particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable. And, to be certain, we get it, it's not just you. I covered that part, too. (ibid.) ― The particular ignorance Trump defenders seem to require in order to make their cases ranges well beyond unbelievable. (#741↑) • It's not that you've a weird take on certain issues of history, but, rather, that they just don't seem to exist for you. (#843) • And that's how you keep screwing up your assessments. If there wasn't a history regarding institutional disruption of voters, questions about the Seventeenth Amendment in re Arizona Republicans wouldn't make sense; or, more directly, you couldn't understand what Iceaura said because you didn't know the history. Or, if there wasn't such a rich literary and historical record on the subject, maybe some person who happens to be a white guy from the South saying something about Anglo-American heritage to a roomful of southern sheriffs would be a funny story about how words work, or something; your innovation was to depart from the usual advocacy by simply not having a clue what you were on about. (ibid.) • Inasmuch as you might bawl about ad hominem, the problem is that you just don't stop with this sort of vapidity. To reiterate↑: As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance. The resulting unreliability about your assessments is a reputation that precedes you. (ibid.) You need to learn to use the words correctly: I have provided reference, and, furthermore, the point of recounting your errors is relevant. Your avatar, for instance, would be no reason to discount or devalue your words; that would be ad hominem. Indeed, the mere fact of habitual pretenses of ignorance in the pasat is not in and of itself cause to discredit or devalue your words in the present. That your words in the present continue those patterns, however, is relevant. And if you're as smart as you wannabe, you shouldn't need this explanation, nor the repeated advice about what you're doing wrong. Think of it this way: We already know you have trouble using fallacy names correctly, but you've dug yourself a hole so deep we're now supposed to believe the word "unsupported" defies your comprehension. So, yeah, okay, we'll believe you, but only because you keep insisting on this angry poseur pretense of arguing from extraordinary ignorance. That string of words might make sense to you, but, really, if you weren't just looking to pester Iceaura for the hell of it, you might have tried a better approach than ignorance poodling to stupidity. Start making sense. One sad thing about any number of people who aren't so eager for this or that supremacism to exist is how easily they defend its existence. Really, if you knew more about the history, that point would already be apparent to you. Well, that's because that is all you're capable of seeing. It's not so much about the Bidens themselves as the American aristocracy, which point ought to have been obvious, given that you actually quoted it. To reiterate: • One part is classism itself, which is a question pretty much any day, except it is brought to extraordinary focus by the proposition that Donald Trump and his supporters would attempt to sacrifice the entire American bourgeoisie, our American aristocracy, including Trump's own family, just to get a piece of Joe Biden. But that's not all; part of what you skipped over also clarifies this point: For the masses watching, suffering, enduring the games pretending gods and monsters, this is one time when it's a genuine both-sides, all-sides issue that nobody really knows what to do about, but therein lies the hook. And, as I noted: There is much to discuss of classism and privilege in American society, and, sure, especially at the valence of national politics. We're not surprised that the only thing you get out of that is, "That sounds so much more like a condemnation of Biden than a defense." See also, "Both Sides, Both Ways …"↗, a thread that opens with consideration of history relevant to our discussion. Actually, there are times when comparative history is not simply appropriate, but requisite. For instance, as I said, it's easy to make certain arguments within a pretense of tabula rasa, as if nothing is defined. Furthermore, remember that thirty-some thousand personal emails weren't just the basis of extraordinary Congressional behavior, but is part of what leads to the impeachment prospect looming over Trump: He's the one who dragged Hillary Clinton's emails into the scandal. Thirty-three thousand personal emails? That was worth wrecking the State Department and a presidency? Compared to twenty-two million emails including evidence clarifying the prima facie appearance of criminality, the idea that Clinton's emails are worth such extraordinary cost makes its own point. After all, defending President Trump's behavior in the Ukraine question also requires defending his priorities therein. When the standard of propriety is bound to political party name, it isn't a proper standard. For all you seem to crave simple zingers, part of the reason you botch up words like "ad hominem", "whataboutism", and "unsupported", is that you're not attending what the meanings of those words do when applied in living action. Impeachment is political, and relies on political will; we can worry about the "not criminal" part when it becomes relevant. For instance, it's one thing to stand on the principle of the right confronting accusing witnesses; that time will come. But we should not, for instance, invoke the Sixth Amendment, because the courts are clear on application to criminal prosecutions. As to the, "and" you mentioned? Well, that's the thing. Bill pushed too hard; but if we want to tack Hillary to the wall for parsing as she did, well, let's face it, neither American attorneys nor their clients who need them are going to sacrifice that rhetorical range just to put a woman in her place over stuff some polticians actually defend when the boys do it. Or maybe it really is about party labels, but the pattern is clear. And it just fills in detail reinforcing the point that you don't seem to know what you're on about. Meanwhile, speaking of, "And?" Impeachment is political, and relies on political will. And? [(cont.)]
[2/2] You say such things as if they cannot be compared to the record. Like, if we go back to September (#741), we can consider what has happened since: If nobody knows what to tell you, I explained, it's because you apparently missed everything. And the next sentence asked: You can't possibly be referring to the part where Trump asks for a favor and leads with a conspiracy theory about Hillary Clinton, right? And it's true, I looked it up; the conspiracy theory about skipping words isn't about that part, but, rather, ignores it entirely. Honestly, is it that you fall for this stuff, or do you think other people will? See, this is the part where we're obliged to put a foot down: We don't believe you're really so stupid. Trump's pursuit of Hunter Biden results in a whistleblower complaint that compels pepole to ask why, and when the right says, "Hunter Biden", and left looks, of course here comes the follow-up in which the right complains that nobody cared about Hunter Biden until the left looked. We are very accustomed to the right wing complaining about people giving them what they want. Indeed, there is a reason why you sometimes encounter people who simply won't put up with your incompetent recycling of the same worthless dishonesty we've heard from the right for decades. They whine when they get their way, and bawl when they don't. As a note aside, though, no, it's long past being funny watching antisocial know-nothing rightism get all self-righteous only to embarrass itself in the same breath. Discerning readers will note the absence of any such consideration in your posts. Like the conspiracy theory about missing words, which omits consideration of the bit about the favor and the email conspiracy theory. Furthermore, since then the situation has only gotten worse; as we learn more about what the White House omitted from its improperly-handled call summary, which President Trump described as a transcript, his situation only worsens. It's one thing to be so far behind, but you're not even trying to catch up. That's a really clumsy effort for a straw man. But it's also true you've been screwing up all this time. What dots? That has to do with your consistent wrongness. Meanwhile, if we follow the question of range, we find ourselves over a month ago, with your declaration that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either" (#757↑). Notice how your statement of executive privilege and pardon power are unbound; the truth of the matter is that there are limits. Thus, as I said, in #758↑, executive privilege is not unlimited, neither is pardon power. Your response at #768↑, argues, "Straw man. Never said either was unlimited." The thing is, you failed to limit your statement that presidents have executive privilege and pardon power; while it may be true that you never said the word "unlimited", the application of your observation of executive privilege and pardon power does, in fact, transcend or, at least, challenge the known limitations. And in your comparisons of, say, Trump and Obama, it does help to understand something about history and process; the Republican move against Holder is what it is, but it was extraordinary, and we know they wouldn't tolerate such action toward themselves because of their response to the present, asymetrical circumstance. That is, hell, compared to how they're holding out, now, regarding extraordinary behavior, we cannot imagine they would have accepted a contempt vote against a Republican attorney general behaving within the bounds of historical models. Once again, your argument relied on ignorance. Still, responding to your argument that you never said either executive privilege or pardon power were unlimited, I explained (#776↑): • The reminder that executive privilege and pardon power are not unlimited attends your unbound statement that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power. Nothing unlawful about either." Such as it is, those sentences might be generally correct, but they are not necessarily appropriate to the particular application. And your best answer, apparently, was, "IOW, you just don't like the fact that they are, indeed, correct...and are backpedaling to what you personally deem is 'appropriate'" (#792↑). At some point, it bears reminding: There are real facts in the world, and not everything is a thin political dualism derived from your need. In your dispute with another (#757), the argument that, "Presidents do have executive privilege and pardon power", overlooks the limitations already transgressed, such that the substantive question is how close Trump himself was to the dangling of pardons; recent pretenses of executive privilege and confusion thereabout are failing spectacularly, such that defying Congress and obstructing justice is all some of the Trump administration have left to hold out on. They long ago stopped citing the Fifth or executive privilege, and simply started refusing to answer. But therein we start to see the range that confuses you. As I said in #813↑, the problem here is your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range. It's true, you skipped out on it in #817↑, but since it tied into your question about why I raised the question of the Seventeenth, I reminded explicitly: "As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance." And all you can do, it seems, is complain of ad hominem (#819↑). Meanwhile, it's worth noting that, along the way, we encountered limitations of executive privilege (#831↑), when the Trump administration tried to invoke executive privilege over Fiona Hill's testimony. Additionally, in a case related to Trump's tax returns, the federal court acknowledged the legality of the impeachment inquiry, which happens to have the effect of reinforcing Hill's response, that the appearance of government conduct outweighs executive privilege. That hadn't happened, yet, when you continued whining about ad hominem in #841↑, which in turn draws response in #843↑— • Inasmuch as you might bawl about ad hominem, the problem is that you just don't stop with this sort of vapidity. To reiterate: As with your prior failures to grasp either the basic facts or fundamental civic processes you purport to assess and critique, the current problem with your attempt to apply an unbound statement to subject matter that does not fall within its range is ignorance. The resulting unreliability about your assessments is a reputation that precedes you. —and now here you are, desperately grasping after straws: You complain that I "seem incapable of defining your supposed 'range'", so here you go: ▸ Your unbound statement about executive privilege and pardon power intends application to people, issues, and circumstances that fall outside the range of such authority. Would it have been better, then, to say that your unbound application of juristic principle exceeds its recognized prerogative and purview? Yes, presidents have executive privilege. And? Yes, presidents have pardon power. And? Yes, impeachment is political, and relies on political will. And? You leave arguments hanging, like that, a lot. Like this, from another thread↗: Yes, a Certification of Live Birth is a different document than a long-form Birth Certificate. And? If you understood more about those civic elements, you would be able to answer the "and". [fin]
You have claimed that no one knows about the evidence of collusion inside, for example. You have gone out of your way to claim that there is no evidence of collusion inside, demonstrating interest in that matter. I have claimed otherwise, based on reading what is inside. Are you still interested in the evidence of collusion inside the report, or have you changed your mind?
No. Your example is a lie too. Quite obviously nobody cares about your opinion. Even the Dems have preferred to construct something completely different to start their impeachment, so whatever there is about that "collusion", it is obviously not enough to start anything against him. Note also that the only point why such "collusion" could be interesting for an outside observer would be if it becomes relevant for impeachment or so. This point has been clarified now, once the Dems preferred something else to start impeachment. Given that this "something else" is much worse for the Dems (they have to present themselves as defenders of that sufficiently obviously corrupt Biden), it is clear that the collusion evidence, if present at all, was close to nothing, at least nothing usable.
Quit lying: Quite obviously, you care about his opinion. What passes for your argument, however, relies on ignorance of process, and a pretense of general ignorance that, if true, would generally be considered disqualifying. Thus:: This is just make-believe, unsupported, and insupportable. If you could support such arguments, you would. This is a filler point. What stands out, though, is your utter gullibility: The challenge, for Democrats, of following up on the Mueller report, involves working through the extraordinary efforts to conceal and obstruct Congress according to novel pretenses untenable in general execution. To wit, I have, of late, been reminding another neighbor of the problems about unbound statements applied outside their appropriate range, and this isn't irrelevant. Also, that discussion involves consideration of criticism about what one does not understand, and that seems directly relevant, inasmuch as you both compare Democratic actions against an objectionable standard. That is, if they behaved according to the implications of your argument, you would complain of illegitimacy and, compared to, say, my own record, it could turn out that you would have a point. Democrats wreck any chance of dealing with the Russia question by rushing the deliberately hamstrung record to impeachment. In the wake of Mueller investigation documents emerging through FOIA, one of the bigger surprises among analysts tending toward institutionalist presuppositions is Robert Mueller, himself. It's hard to describe, at this point, because it looks like what some suspected, that there are affecting omissions about the investigation; and for those who acknowledge the difference between outright tanking and hewing to duty, one thing apparent in these early revelations is that the Department of Justice will find it difficult to answer appropriately for what it has done. People are hesitant to crash on Mueller at this point because what has come to light seems to reaffirm that without AG Barr's interference, Mueller's report would have shown Congress precisely where the gaps were. Turning back to your and other make-believe about the Congressional Democrats, impeachment, and Russia, if they had rushed forward as the present critiques seem to suggest, they would have been doing it wrong; that was the whole point of Barr's meddling and DoJ's obstruction of its own work. It isn't that the Mueller report is insufficient to justify impeachment; rather, it's that the Trump administration has gone out of its way to wreck DoJ and obscure the report. As we are finding, as we peek behind the obstructing curtain, the report is very bad for President Trump. Furthermore, it would appear that the Stone trial currently underway in New York is within range of establishing that Trump answered Mueller inaccurately. Now, of course, none of this is definitive. But it either interests you or not, but what is of no interest to you often leaves your disruptions seeming as if disruption is the purpose. Which, in turn, does come back, in its own way, to the question of what it takes to defend Donald Trump. As does the question of such obsolete simplicity about what your argument, or whatever it is passing so awkwardly as one in these posts.
There is no such entity as "the Dems" you refer to there - that Party contains a wide range of politic stances, including Congressmen like Collin Petersen from my region of the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collin_Peterson (If he acknowledges the contents of the Mueller report (afaik he has never admitted to having read it) or any of these other reports (phone calls, refusals to respond to subpoenas, withholding of tax info, etc) he risks losing his financial and electoral support, he puts his job on the line. Several other Dems similarly. ) Anyone who has no interest in the evidence against Trump or the details of his behavior is welcome to ignore such things - even the inside observers, never mind the outside non-observers such as yourself. Meanwhile, there are a lot of Dems - even in Congress - who wanted to start impeachment proceedings months ago, based on what they knew even before the Mueller report. When the Mueller report came out, the only question for them was why Pelosi was stalling with such obvious, slam dunk evidence at hand. Pelosi was stalling for Blue Dog Dem votes, apparently - Trump has refused to release the Mueller report in full, just as he has prevented the release (or even the making) of transcripts of his official dealings with certain foreign heads of State, and begun simply defying the various other Federal and State investigations into what look like crimes (notice that he no longer even pretends to legal justification, as he did a few months ago). All of this is obstruction of justice, a violation of his oath of office, and impeachable in itself, of course. But it has the advantage, for the Republicans and co-opted Democrats in Congress, of sheltering them in their otherwise ludicrous attempts to pander to the ignorance and childishness of their constituents: the Trump backers and other ignorant people who haven't been following Trump's actual behavior can pretend (as you are pretending) to not see what's in front of them. That is more comfortable than admitting to having been suckered in such a flagrant and semi-comical fashion for the past twenty or thirty years, which is something you (a reliable poster of the Republican media feed) would seem to be able to verify by introspection. Imagine what would it take for you to acknowledge that my posts here have been accurate and well informed, while yours have been wildly wrong and full of the silliest Republican propaganda available? That's the position many Congressional Dems are in - and Pelosi needs their votes. So we have this situation among not only foreigners who overtly prefer the US be harmed by Trump, but many US citizens and their political representatives who claim to prefer otherwise. So meanwhile you/they don't know anything about it, and all your/their opinions about it are completely ignorant. (That was pointed out to you long ago. Recall that you didn't even know who Barr was, or why he was hired to deceive you (successfully)). Notice that in this matter, as in all US political matters, you are parroting Republican media feeds and reactions: many prominent Republicans, such as Lindsey Graham, have like you declared in public that they have not and will not read any of the documentation of Trump's behavior in office, and the Rep media feeds have encouraged loyal Republicans to do (or rather not do) likewise. And they have signed on. Notice the crowds of people behind Trump in his recent public appearances, wearing T-shirts printed with "Read The Transcript" - referring to Trump's phone call on July 25th? Trump backers are all, apparently, ignorant of the fact that there is no such transcript - Trump forbade the presence of the normal (and probably legally required) transcribers altogether, according to Walker, just as we recall he forbade the presence of US translators during his side meetings with Putin. No independent witnesses except Russians and the complicit, appears to be the policy.
Not about what he thinks about collusion in the report. I have explained this many times, the only thing which would be interesting for me would be something new about the Russian "meddling". Except that I have not tried to argue about something. All I have done was to explain why I ignore this particular question. You misinterpret this as an argument (for which claim???) and blame me for ignorance. Even funny. Your inability to understand my texts is your, not my problem. Ok, as the result I'm sometimes confronted, as in this case, with disruption by a lot of argumentation about something I'm completely uninterested in. But this is easy to handle with CTRL-X. Discuss this with those who defend him. I don't. Assuming that I do seems to be the starting point of your many misinterpretations. Possibly you are a victim of iceaura's many repetitions of the "you are a Rep parrot" nonsense. As if it would not be obvious that if I argue with a Dem parrots the typical counterargument will be used in the Rep propaganda too. So, just to repeat what I have explained many times: I like it that Trump is the US president because this is better for world peace. He has, at least, not yet started a new war, and even made a partial withdrawal from Syria. As Clinton, as (after an impeachment) Pence would be much more dangerous, both would not have withdrawn from even an inch of Syrian occupied territory. Moreover, Trump weakens the power of the globalists. Either because he does not care, or he is too stupid to care - this is not the point, all that matters is the fact, and the fact is that globalists have been weakened during the last years. Given that the globalists are the most dangerous group for world peace, this is certainly good. Then, I like to see the split in the US deep state. A split in the enemy's camp is almost always good news, and one wishes success (in destroying their enemies) to both sides. What the anti-Trumpers have reached is nice too - a frustrated SA leader after the Kashoggi media campaign started by the anti-Trumpers to harm Trump's SA connections was really nice, as well as the attempts to stop the Syria withdrawal with the result that now the US now openly declares that the official US policy is the robbery of foreign oil resources. But, note, it does not even follow that I would support Trump during the next elections. It may be quite plausible that the next Dem candidate will be even better in weakening the US, say, by deepening the split in the US elites and by implementing stupid socialist policies that will weaken the US economically.
Well, look, Schmelzer, we all knew you were wasting your time and ours. Now that you've made the point, people need not worry about whether your disruptions go anywhere. Stop disrupting discussions. At some point in your time here, you ought to try contributing something useful.
As you do not know what is in the report, it would all be new to you - including the stuff about the Russian meddling. The corporate ones have been strengthened, and provided with mercenaries as well as US soldiers on demand. Trump has not withdrawn from an inch of Syrian occupied territory either. And he is only in his third year in office - he has plenty of time to outdo any recent Democratic Party President in war starting, and maybe even the Republican ones. Your imagination does not create a reality. Trump has boosted the US military budget, and the US employment of drones and paramilitaries and CIA black ops. At the same time, he has weakened US diplomatic efforts and capabilities, violated treaties and agreements worldwide, and picked fights with whoever Putin allowed him to, including countries with nuclear weapons, and one the US shares a border with. That sets up military intervention in the interests of the corporate globalists who have been backing Trump since his election. Yes, you do. Much of the Republican propaganda feed you parrot is nothing but defense of Trump - such as Barr's deceptions, which you repeated here, and the 'no collusion' line you are still repeating, and the comparisons with other American politicians you know nothing about. Meanwhile, the Mueller report remains unread by you - along with every other account of Trump's venality and betrayal and violation of oath and increasing reliance on coercion. You find safety in ignorance. And you feel safer because you think a fascist and hyper-militarized America whose diplomatic capabilities and internal rule of law have been trashed by a con man with grandiose global ambitions is less of a threat to world peace than a country that has maintained three thousand miles of nearly undefended border without war for a century.
Of course, there are different factions. But there are such factions among the Reps too, say, anti-Trumpers vs. Trump supporters, but you like to present them as some single entity. Even in this case, you cannot argue without lies? Because I have never declared that I will not read any of this. All that I have declared is that up to now nothing has been presented which would make reading it more interesting than the latest news about marital arguments among celebrities. This is, given the leaks from deep staters (who are now no longer an unconstitutional hidden power structure, but the heroes defending democracy if one follows NYT), is a very reasonable choice. Even better if this is illegal and Trump will be impeached because of this. This weakens the US even much more, all those US puppets in governments all over the world will know that the content of their "confidential negotiations" with US diplomats can become public every day, even against the will of the guy they talked with. This will force them to take a position even in "confidential negotiations" which they can at least defend at home if this becomes public. So, please make it even more illegal, distribute the legal obligation of full records to every bureaucrat who has contact with foreigners, and allow these records to be used a lot in various courts or impeachment procedures or whatever. No. I know what has been claimed about this before, and was told there is nothing new. He has. US troops have left the whole Manbidsh area as well as the Northern part of Syria. How often I have to repeat myself until you understand elementary things, like that I'm no longer interested in that collusion thing instead of repeating a particular claim of Barr (which I have, BTW, never repeated)? LOL. I couldn't care less if Trump betrays you, violates oaths or US laws or whatever. These are your internal problems. I ought you nothing. Stop disrupting discussions yourself, and I will not answer your disruptions. While I remember some reasonable contributions from iceaura, even from our local Nazi CptBork, I don't remember any reasonable contribution from your side. PS: Ok, I have almost forgotten one meaningful contribution.
