proudfootz wrote:
Or does Mueller mean 'yes there was' when he writes 'no there wasn't'?

Except that's not at all what he wrote.

And how about you read the entire report rather than a snippet served up to you so you understand what the context is? The Mueller report identified numerous instances of both the Trump campaign apparently being willing to accept Russian involvement, and numerous instances of the Russians trying to be involved... but all instances failed for various reasons, most of them down to ineptitude.

So declaring there to be no de facto coordination is one thing, but the point is there was attempted coordination which is problematic in the exact same way as attempted murder doesn't require you to actually murder someone for it to be ethically and legally problematic.

If you did read the report, you'd also note very quickly that Mueller had made it clear that he could not find Trump guilty of anything, he could only exonerate him. At best possible reading, the report is ambivalent with respect to the attempted coordination because while there is sufficient evidence to show that attempts were made, the evidence did not amount to an unavoidable establishment of guilt.

Really, the report is freely available, so if you want to discuss it and make claims about its content, then you really have no excuse not to read it.

proudfootz wrote:
Hope this helps you figure out why skepticism of unevidenced claims is justified. You might try it!

Read the damn report instead of blagging.

proudfootz wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Wrong. The Muller report clearly says there is not active collusion. Which mean; Tump and associates actively trying to get dirt on Clinton. That's because there isn't any evidence that the Tump tower meeting with te Russian woman didn't get anywhere. Either because they didn't procede, or because they buried the evidence. Trump himself claimed Russians helped him get elected.

'The Muller report clearly says there is not active collusion.'

That's my understanding, and the understanding of any number of observers.

Then you and your observers need to actually read the report, then. Try page 2.

This bit?

Like collusion, "coordination" does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other's actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

Or does Mueller mean 'yes there was' when he writes 'no there wasn't'?

Indeed, mistaking "did not establish" for "no there wasn't" is pretty crazy, to say nothing of you still not understanding he's not talking about collusion, even after having allegedly read page 2. But it was already pretty clear that you selectively read for what you want to see, rather than for what things say.

Spearthrower wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
Or does Mueller mean 'yes there was' when he writes 'no there wasn't'?

Except that's not at all what he wrote.

And how about you read the entire report rather than a snippet served up to you so you understand what the context is? The Mueller report identified numerous instances of both the Trump campaign apparently being willing to accept Russian involvement, and numerous instances of the Russians trying to be involved... but all instances failed for various reasons, most of them down to ineptitude.

I'm trying to imagine what one would have to be smoking to know that a Russian operative, claiming to be a Russian operative, offered information to serve its own goals in getting Trump elected, and Trump says "I love it!", and thinking to oneself, "Nope, nothing wrong with this picture. No collusion!"

In an exclusive interview with The Hill, the president vehemently denied the allegations just hours after Carroll detailed the alleged incident during a cable news interview.

“I’ll say it with great respect: Number one, she’s not my type. Number two, it never happened. It never happened, OK?” the president said while seated behind the Resolute Desk in the Oval Office.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... sIw4Ajw8cI


Notice he doesn't say, "I would never rape someone." But rather, "She's not my type." Insinuating that he would rape her if she was his type.

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

Wrong. The Muller report clearly says there is not active collusion. Which mean; Tump and associates actively trying to get dirt on Clinton. That's because there isn't any evidence that the Tump tower meeting with te Russian woman didn't get anywhere. Either because they didn't procede, or because they buried the evidence. Trump himself claimed Russians helped him get elected.

'The Muller report clearly says there is not active collusion.'

That's my understanding, and the understanding of any number of observers.

How convenient of you to avoid answering the rest.

That 'Tump' was trying to get dirt on Clinton? Something like the Steel Dossier from Fusion GPS? Horrible!

There was a Russian woman in a meeting in 'Tump' Tower? Veselnitskaya? Who was supposedly peddling information on Clinton provided from Fusion GPS?

No evidence this meeting didn't get anywhere?

I'm sort of interested in whether there is evidence it did. Burden of proof is on the accusers, not the defendant. At least that was the way it was. Has that changed?

Maybe they buried the evidence you'd need to make your case? Now isn't that convenient.

Lots of people are claiming Russians helped 'Tump' - but I wouldn't put too much reliance on the President's tweets.

Hope this helps you figure out why skepticism of unevidenced claims is justified. You might try it!

No seriously, you must be doing this on purpose. You're saying exactly the same thing I did, pretending I said the opposite. Pathetic.

Spearthrower wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
Or does Mueller mean 'yes there was' when he writes 'no there wasn't'?

Except that's not at all what he wrote.

And how about you read the entire report rather than a snippet served up to you so you understand what the context is? The Mueller report identified numerous instances of both the Trump campaign apparently being willing to accept Russian involvement, and numerous instances of the Russians trying to be involved... but all instances failed for various reasons, most of them down to ineptitude.

So declaring there to be no de facto coordination is one thing, but the point is there was attempted coordination which is problematic in the exact same way as attempted murder doesn't require you to actually murder someone for it to be ethically and legally problematic.

If you did read the report, you'd also note very quickly that Mueller had made it clear that he could not find Trump guilty of anything, he could only exonerate him. At best possible reading, the report is ambivalent with respect to the attempted coordination because while there is sufficient evidence to show that attempts were made, the evidence did not amount to an unavoidable establishment of guilt.

Really, the report is freely available, so if you want to discuss it and make claims about its content, then you really have no excuse not to read it.

...and I am agreeing with Mueller.

If the report - as you and Mueller (and everyone else apparently) - concludes there is not sufficient evidence to establish guilt then I am in no position to suppose there is guilt.

FFS why is that so difficult for some posters to grasp?

aban57 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

'The Muller report clearly says there is not active collusion.'

That's my understanding, and the understanding of any number of observers.

How convenient of you to avoid answering the rest.

That 'Tump' was trying to get dirt on Clinton? Something like the Steel Dossier from Fusion GPS? Horrible!

There was a Russian woman in a meeting in 'Tump' Tower? Veselnitskaya? Who was supposedly peddling information on Clinton provided from Fusion GPS?

No evidence this meeting didn't get anywhere?

I'm sort of interested in whether there is evidence it did. Burden of proof is on the accusers, not the defendant. At least that was the way it was. Has that changed?

Maybe they buried the evidence you'd need to make your case? Now isn't that convenient.

Lots of people are claiming Russians helped 'Tump' - but I wouldn't put too much reliance on the President's tweets.

Hope this helps you figure out why skepticism of unevidenced claims is justified. You might try it!

No seriously, you must be doing this on purpose. You're saying exactly the same thing I did, pretending I said the opposite. Pathetic.

Then isn't it nice we are in agreement? Or is it 'pathetic' that we agree?

I gathered you thought we disagreed when you wrote: "How convenient of you to avoid answering the rest. "

I guess I'm damned if I answer, and damned if I don't.

So it goes.

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

How convenient of you to avoid answering the rest.

That 'Tump' was trying to get dirt on Clinton? Something like the Steel Dossier from Fusion GPS? Horrible!

There was a Russian woman in a meeting in 'Tump' Tower? Veselnitskaya? Who was supposedly peddling information on Clinton provided from Fusion GPS?

No evidence this meeting didn't get anywhere?

I'm sort of interested in whether there is evidence it did. Burden of proof is on the accusers, not the defendant. At least that was the way it was. Has that changed?

Maybe they buried the evidence you'd need to make your case? Now isn't that convenient.

Lots of people are claiming Russians helped 'Tump' - but I wouldn't put too much reliance on the President's tweets.

Hope this helps you figure out why skepticism of unevidenced claims is justified. You might try it!

No seriously, you must be doing this on purpose. You're saying exactly the same thing I did, pretending I said the opposite. Pathetic.

Then isn't it nice we are in agreement? Or is it 'pathetic' that we agree?

I gathered you thought we disagreed when you wrote: "How convenient of you to avoid answering the rest. "

I guess I'm damned if I answer, and damned if I don't.

So it goes.

So either you have brain damage, or you're being willingly obtuse. I wrote the same thing as Spearthrower (although not as well written), and in both cases you just took what you wanted and ignore the conclusion you don't like. Which is, the report did show Trump tried to collude with the russians. Also there's this little matter of the FBI report proving the Russians meddled in the election, with the specific purpose of electing Scumbag-in-chief, just like they tried in France and succeeded in the UK. But by all means, don't let facts stand in the way of your endocrination, that would look really bad !

proudfootz wrote:
...and I am agreeing with Mueller.

If the report - as you and Mueller (and everyone else apparently) - concludes there is not sufficient evidence to establish guilt then I am in no position to suppose there is guilt.

FFS why is that so difficult for some posters to grasp?

FFS go read the report and stop blagging because its obvious to anyone who has read the report that you haven't and you're blagging.

Dozens of instances of attempted coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, numerous Russian nationals and companies indicted along with dozens of American nationals connected to the Trump campaign.

No one can oblige you to pull your head out of your arse, but similarly don't expect anyone to join you up there.

proudfootz wrote:
That's exactly why I linked to a news and analysis article to help people to have the tools to stop denying reality.

You're the one wholly denying reality.

proudfootz wrote:
But I find that rather than being grateful for more information some decide to pitch a fit.

You need to work on your trolling as it's lowest common denominator shit at the moment' even Youtube morons do better.

proudfootz wrote:
I guess I'm damned if I answer, and damned if I don't.

So it goes.

That tends to happen when you're not engaging in a discussion honestly.

aban57 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

aban57 wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

That 'Tump' was trying to get dirt on Clinton? Something like the Steel Dossier from Fusion GPS? Horrible!

There was a Russian woman in a meeting in 'Tump' Tower? Veselnitskaya? Who was supposedly peddling information on Clinton provided from Fusion GPS?

No evidence this meeting didn't get anywhere?

I'm sort of interested in whether there is evidence it did. Burden of proof is on the accusers, not the defendant. At least that was the way it was. Has that changed?

Maybe they buried the evidence you'd need to make your case? Now isn't that convenient.

Lots of people are claiming Russians helped 'Tump' - but I wouldn't put too much reliance on the President's tweets.

Hope this helps you figure out why skepticism of unevidenced claims is justified. You might try it!

No seriously, you must be doing this on purpose. You're saying exactly the same thing I did, pretending I said the opposite. Pathetic.

Then isn't it nice we are in agreement? Or is it 'pathetic' that we agree?

I gathered you thought we disagreed when you wrote: "How convenient of you to avoid answering the rest. "

I guess I'm damned if I answer, and damned if I don't.

So it goes.

So either you have brain damage, or you're being willingly obtuse. I wrote the same thing as Spearthrower (although not as well written), and in both cases you just took what you wanted and ignore the conclusion you don't like. Which is, the report did show Trump tried to collude with the russians. Also there's this little matter of the FBI report proving the Russians meddled in the election, with the specific purpose of electing Scumbag-in-chief, just like they tried in France and succeeded in the UK.

So what you are trying to claim is that Team Trump tried to collude with some Russians, and some Russians tried to collude with Team Trump and somehow after a thorough and very professional investigation by the best damned guy we have - Robert Mueller - no evidence emerged that there was any such conspiracy/collusion/cooperation?

What in there being 'no conclusive evidence' would compel anyone to conclude there was cooperation/conspiracy/collusion?

Just because I demand that evidence and you do not is no case for my suffering 'brain damage'.

It would appear the only person suffering from indoctrination is you. The need to believe. But your belief is so fragile that you need to damn heretics doubters.

But by all means, don't let facts stand in the way of your endocrination, that would look really bad !

My endocrine system is just fine, thanks!

Spearthrower wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
I guess I'm damned if I answer, and damned if I don't.

So it goes.

That tends to happen when you're not engaging in a discussion honestly.

But I am honest, so that rather upsets your pathetic attempt at a strawman.

Don't project your psychological profile onto me. TMI

So what you are trying to claim is that Team Trump tried to collude with some Russians, and some Russians tried to collude with Team Trump and somehow after a thorough and very professional investigation by the best damned guy we have - Robert Mueller - no evidence emerged that there was any such conspiracy/collusion/cooperation?

No, what people are saying is that there is evidence of them trying to coordinate. Remember? Attempted murder, while not as bad as murder, is still pretty bad.

So the idea that there was 'no evidence' is just wilful self-deceit.

proudfootz wrote:

But I am honest, so that rather upsets your pathetic attempt at a strawman.

Easy to toss out labels of fallacies, but rather more difficult to establish that such fallacy occurred.

proudfootz wrote:Don't project your psychological profile onto me. TMI

Stop yammering bullshit to deflect from your inability to engage honestly.

aban57 wrote:
I wrote the same thing as Spearthrower (although not as well written), and in both cases you just took what you wanted and ignore the conclusion you don't like.

That appears to be the consistent pattern and it's a major problem in the US at the moment because, after 2 years and many millions of dollars spent, for a considerable quantity of the population it may as well never happened because they don't bother reading the report and just follow the party line unthinkingly. Over 30% of Americans polled believed the Mueller report exonerated Trump... and where would they have got that idea? From Trump. It's so obviously deficient, it really makes you wonder. Any which way, it reiterates the notion that Trump's not the problem, but rather is a symptom of the problem.

Spearthrower wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
...and I am agreeing with Mueller.

If the report - as you and Mueller (and everyone else apparently) - concludes there is not sufficient evidence to establish guilt then I am in no position to suppose there is guilt.

FFS why is that so difficult for some posters to grasp?

FFS go read the report and stop blagging because its obvious to anyone who has read the report that you haven't and you're blagging.

Dozens of instances of attempted coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, numerous Russian nationals and companies indicted along with dozens of American nationals connected to the Trump campaign.

No one can oblige you to pull your head out of your arse, but similarly don't expect anyone to join you up there.

Lovely - you can't rebut any of the evidence or arguments so you resort to schoolyard taunts.

It just goes to show that, deep down, you know all your frantic handwaving has been a failure. A complete and utter failure.

Spearthrower wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
That's exactly why I linked to a news and analysis article to help people to have the tools to stop denying reality.

You're the one wholly denying reality.

I know you are, what am I?

Pathetic. Try engaging with the facts and the arguments and stop pretending to know anything about me.

But I suppose if you were capable of doing that, you'd have done so by now.

proudfootz wrote:
But I find that rather than being grateful for more information some decide to pitch a fit.

You need to work on your trolling as it's lowest common denominator shit at the moment' even Youtube morons do better.

Since I'm not a troll, your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem fails miserably.

At least shit is good for fertilizer, and all your arsewater posts are good for is trying to hide you inadequacies.

But enough of this back and forth - after several pages and several days no one has been able to rebut the truth of the article I linked that triggered your meltdown.

It's mostly been attacks on me, attacks on my sources, and zero engagement in honest debate.

Drop it. You are lost. Admit it, deal with it, and use it as a learning experience.

proudfootz wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
...and I am agreeing with Mueller.

If the report - as you and Mueller (and everyone else apparently) - concludes there is not sufficient evidence to establish guilt then I am in no position to suppose there is guilt.

FFS why is that so difficult for some posters to grasp?

FFS go read the report and stop blagging because its obvious to anyone who has read the report that you haven't and you're blagging.

Dozens of instances of attempted coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, numerous Russian nationals and companies indicted along with dozens of American nationals connected to the Trump campaign.

No one can oblige you to pull your head out of your arse, but similarly don't expect anyone to join you up there.

Lovely - you can't rebut any of the evidence or arguments so you resort to schoolyard taunts.

You haven't presented any evidence or arguments, all you've done is show that you haven't actually read the report and don't have the foggiest clue what it says. Par for the course!

It just goes to show that, deep down, you know all your frantic handwaving has been a failure. A complete and utter failure.

...he said, waving his tiny hands frantically and shrieking, "No collusion!!"

proudfootz wrote:
Lovely - you can't rebut any of the evidence or arguments so you resort to schoolyard taunts.

Your trolling is transparent: I cited the evidence - the Mueller report, that thing you didn't bother to read yet are pretending somehow to know what it contains.

proudfootz wrote:It just goes to show that, deep down, you know all your frantic handwaving has been a failure. A complete and utter failure.

You'd best scurry back off to Youtube comments section: the natural home for your level of discourse.

proudfootz wrote:

I know you are, what am I?

Exactly; the schoolyard bullshit is wholly coming from you.

proudfootz wrote:Pathetic. Try engaging with the facts and the arguments and stop pretending to know anything about me.

Says the guy who is too lazy or simply doesn't give a fuck about reality to even read the report he thinks he can just decree.

proudfootz wrote:But I suppose if you were capable of doing that, you'd have done so by now.

Whereas, in reality as has already been noted by others here, I have done that, whereas you've continuously evaded addressing any substance.

proudfootz wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

proudfootz wrote:
But I find that rather than being grateful for more information some decide to pitch a fit.

You need to work on your trolling as it's lowest common denominator shit at the moment' even Youtube morons do better.

Since I'm not a troll, your pathetic attempt at an ad hominem fails miserably.

You are trolling, whether or not you're a troll.

Pitch a fit?

Mmm, that's not transparent trolling is it?

proudfootz wrote:At least shit is good for fertilizer, and all your arsewater posts are good for is trying to hide you inadequacies.

Says the guy who hasn't read the report we're supposedly discussing.

Are you going to try and pretend you have read it? Or do you just want to level and admit you haven't bothered to inform yourself?

proudfootz wrote:But enough of this back and forth - after several pages and several days no one has been able to rebut the truth of the article I linked that triggered your meltdown.

More trolling.

The 'truth' of the article? Nice appeal to authority, but the actual topic is the Mueller report, the thing you're pretending supports your position even while you manifestly don't have a fucking clue what it contains.

proudfootz wrote:It's mostly been attacks on me, attacks on my sources, and zero engagement in honest debate.

All lies.

I haven't attacked you.

Attacking your sources is perfectly fine when those sources are irrelevant or comprised of nonsense.

Honest engagement given the topic would be to actually discuss the contents of the Mueller report - that report which you keep pretending you can characterize without even bothering to read it.

proudfootz wrote:Drop it. You are lost. Admit it, deal with it, and use it as a learning experience.

Go troll someone your own level chap. Your ignorance here has been exposed.