The Mueller Report
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
Well, that is a matter of interpretation. What actually came out was two parts. First part: No evidence of collusion. To my way of thinking, saying that there was no evidence of that crime IS a form of exoneration. Second part WAS trickier but ... NO obstruction of justice. What WASN'T said in the summary but what was pointed out on some USA networks news shows is that if there was no crime (of collusion)(, repeatedly refusing to give over evidence of that crime isn't obstruction. It is standing up for your rights - which even the president has. I.e. it is not obstruction to refuse to give that which you don't have.
I heard that Sen. Ted Cruz has publicly stated that they will now have to find another way to get at President Trump because obviously this isn't going to work. Whatever happened to the idea that Congresspeople are there to GOVERN, not point frickin' fingers?
I heard that Sen. Ted Cruz has publicly stated that they will now have to find another way to get at President Trump because obviously this isn't going to work. Whatever happened to the idea that Congresspeople are there to GOVERN, not point frickin' fingers?
I am convinced that Donald Trump has a side to his character, shall we say is something negative. However I make this general observation, and some of it comes from listening to Dr Jordan B Peterson, but I've always had this notion, it's not as if Jordan is showing me something new, it's that he gives me the confidence to state what I know! I heard quite recently that Winston Churchill did some bad things in his life. I also became quite enamoured with the famous physicist Richard Feynman, and was then told that there was a cloud over his career in that he had been inappropriate with women. There have been quite a few others who's names I couldn't quite bring to mind just now.
The first time I had this thought was when I was barely an adult! They were trying to ban fox hunting, and it occurred to me, it wasn't so much about the Fox, as the fact that it was a sport of the upper classes.
So the general theme is, if someone is powerful, worldly, top of the hierarchy! Then there is a tendency to bring them down. However listening to Peterson, I realise I too have a dark side, there are things I've done which I would not like anyone to know about! And then it occurred to me, especially watching Peterson, everyone has this dark side! This is what he means about what happens if you go too far to the left or too far to the right, the power people get taps into this Darkness, and according to Peterson very quickly the s*** hits the fan!
So I think Jordan Peterson has fantastic message in that we must be vigilant about certain people's motives. What does surprise me is that they haven't dug up any s*** on Jordan yet! There must be an awful lot of people looking for it, I'm sure someone will set him up very shortly! It seems to be their Modus operandi....
I hope they don't take him down, I've never heard such a articulate, deep thinking, and truthful person.
The first time I had this thought was when I was barely an adult! They were trying to ban fox hunting, and it occurred to me, it wasn't so much about the Fox, as the fact that it was a sport of the upper classes.
So the general theme is, if someone is powerful, worldly, top of the hierarchy! Then there is a tendency to bring them down. However listening to Peterson, I realise I too have a dark side, there are things I've done which I would not like anyone to know about! And then it occurred to me, especially watching Peterson, everyone has this dark side! This is what he means about what happens if you go too far to the left or too far to the right, the power people get taps into this Darkness, and according to Peterson very quickly the s*** hits the fan!
So I think Jordan Peterson has fantastic message in that we must be vigilant about certain people's motives. What does surprise me is that they haven't dug up any s*** on Jordan yet! There must be an awful lot of people looking for it, I'm sure someone will set him up very shortly! It seems to be their Modus operandi....
I hope they don't take him down, I've never heard such a articulate, deep thinking, and truthful person.
We are human, we are fallible, we make errors of judgement and mistakes. Aside from that, even if you do something you think is good, someone else will think it is bad. Look at the climate change debate. One side thinks that not spending billions on trying to slow climate change shows that you are a danger to the world and someone of low moral character. The other side believes that the whole policy is having a hugely negative impact on many people, such as those in Africa who are struggling to get going. [Can't remember what the argument was, but I know there was one.] So, dark and light can also just depend on which side of the lens you are looking.
Yes I have been, I've broken my rule about keeping out of the AWF water cooler! I stepped in because I just couldn't understand how people could speak about other people with so much vitriol.
I'm currently doing a Blog about it. Well, I'm writing it, whether I publish it or not, well I suppose I will! But anyway it's the writing of it which helps me think about it. I'm seeing there are two very polarised sides, but it occurred to me I'm in the middle, I don't swallow either sides bull...
Vocalising it... (what's the correct term?) That made me think, there's probably a lot of people in the Middle. I mean what choice do you have, you either choose one ideology or the other, and once you've chosen an ideology, you are trapped by it, you can't back out, otherwise you lose face.
I learnt from Jordan B Peterson that ideology gives you a nice comfort zone, access to ready-made answers to anything the other side throws at you. Which seems nice, comfortable and easy way to get involved in a debate! But!!! YOU ARE NOT in a debate, you're not thinking, you're not challenging someone with something new, something you have thought of, you are challenging them with something which is already in existence and already has a battery of rebukes.
It seems to me the only sensible approach is to take the middle ground, call out both sides on their abuse of the statistics, and just try and remain neutral. I thought this was a weakness in me, the tendency to sit on the fence. However now I understand more about ideologies, I understand that it's not my sitting on the fence that's the issue, it's the draw, the attraction, the easiness and the laziness of an ideology that's attractive to people.
Sitting on the fence is quite good fun, but it does tend to annoy the ideologues. I've not joined your gang and I've not joined the other gang, they don't know what to make of it! So then I become a target for both sides, so I'm not going to make any friends! But hold on a minute, just look at the thread, there's no one there who are friends, not that I can see anyway!
I'm currently doing a Blog about it. Well, I'm writing it, whether I publish it or not, well I suppose I will! But anyway it's the writing of it which helps me think about it. I'm seeing there are two very polarised sides, but it occurred to me I'm in the middle, I don't swallow either sides bull...
Vocalising it... (what's the correct term?) That made me think, there's probably a lot of people in the Middle. I mean what choice do you have, you either choose one ideology or the other, and once you've chosen an ideology, you are trapped by it, you can't back out, otherwise you lose face.
I learnt from Jordan B Peterson that ideology gives you a nice comfort zone, access to ready-made answers to anything the other side throws at you. Which seems nice, comfortable and easy way to get involved in a debate! But!!! YOU ARE NOT in a debate, you're not thinking, you're not challenging someone with something new, something you have thought of, you are challenging them with something which is already in existence and already has a battery of rebukes.
It seems to me the only sensible approach is to take the middle ground, call out both sides on their abuse of the statistics, and just try and remain neutral. I thought this was a weakness in me, the tendency to sit on the fence. However now I understand more about ideologies, I understand that it's not my sitting on the fence that's the issue, it's the draw, the attraction, the easiness and the laziness of an ideology that's attractive to people.
Sitting on the fence is quite good fun, but it does tend to annoy the ideologues. I've not joined your gang and I've not joined the other gang, they don't know what to make of it! So then I become a target for both sides, so I'm not going to make any friends! But hold on a minute, just look at the thread, there's no one there who are friends, not that I can see anyway!
Last edited:
Uncle G, that is quite how I feel about the AGW debate in the Access forum. Certain members have their minds made up and simply cannot be bothered to acknowledge how unsettled their "settled science" really is. It is almost like a brainwashed cult member who cannot entertain even the smallest contrary idea. The raging anger and brutal words offered by some members there were disheartening, but I remain a skeptic and I still don't have sufficient proof before me to make it a slam-dunk in favor of AGW.
What interests me is how long the charade can go on before global cooling becomes apparent. And when it does, what will be the reaction of those die-hards who apparently manufacture oil of vitrol by the decaliter.
What interests me is how long the charade can go on before global cooling becomes apparent. And when it does, what will be the reaction of those die-hards who apparently manufacture oil of vitrol by the decaliter.
*
*On any given topic, Democrats and Republicans are interchangeable depending on whether the issue relates to Trump or Clinton.
Everyone is so concerned with being right. Or being more right than the previous person. Why can't the two parties work together to deliver a collaborative solution? I'm really tired of combative politics. Really tired.
*On any given topic, Democrats and Republicans are interchangeable depending on whether the issue relates to Trump or Clinton.
Everyone is so concerned with being right. Or being more right than the previous person. Why can't the two parties work together to deliver a collaborative solution? I'm really tired of combative politics. Really tired.
When many decisions are binary, it is hard to collaborate.
But even worse, when they are out to get Trump, it doesn't matter if they previously agreed with the policy. Schiff and co. voted several times under the Obama administrations for more money to fund for border fencing, but when Trump wants it they refuse and just claim he is racist.
There is a YouTube video with Hillary Clinton saying they need to build a wall. This same witch also said the term "Make America Great Again" is racist, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The Left want to say anything the Right do is racist. Just childish. Go to YouTube again and you will see Bill Clinton using the same phrase, "Let's Make America Great Again." The MAGA hat has become a symbol for hatred for Lefties in the US. But isn't it a bit hypocritical when one of their previous leaders used the same phrase?
But even worse, when they are out to get Trump, it doesn't matter if they previously agreed with the policy. Schiff and co. voted several times under the Obama administrations for more money to fund for border fencing, but when Trump wants it they refuse and just claim he is racist.
There is a YouTube video with Hillary Clinton saying they need to build a wall. This same witch also said the term "Make America Great Again" is racist, which is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The Left want to say anything the Right do is racist. Just childish. Go to YouTube again and you will see Bill Clinton using the same phrase, "Let's Make America Great Again." The MAGA hat has become a symbol for hatred for Lefties in the US. But isn't it a bit hypocritical when one of their previous leaders used the same phrase?
I think people 'think' decisions are binary - and that's the problem. Most decisions are not either or - but they are set up by politicians that way: More funding for libraries, or more funding for care homes? What's to say there isn't a creative solution that means more funding for libraries AND care homes if people actually worked together to solve the problem?
Trump or Hillary...I consider that quite binary!
With limited resources, I think much of it is not so much about whether any money goes towards a particular cause, but how much. Divert away from defence to the NHS, or the other way, for example.
I think in the future it may all become a mute point, since even the poorest will have their own 3D printing machines, that can churn out anything they want: food, a new TV, guns!
No doubt some idiot will product a 3D printing machine that replicates itself, so there is an exponential explosion in machines, gobbling up all the world's resources until nothing is left.
With limited resources, I think much of it is not so much about whether any money goes towards a particular cause, but how much. Divert away from defence to the NHS, or the other way, for example.
I think in the future it may all become a mute point, since even the poorest will have their own 3D printing machines, that can churn out anything they want: food, a new TV, guns!
No doubt some idiot will product a 3D printing machine that replicates itself, so there is an exponential explosion in machines, gobbling up all the world's resources until nothing is left.
I saw today that Mueller was turned down by Trump for the job of FBI director (if that is the correct term for the top job?). He was also good friends with James Comey, who was part of the investigation. Trump also claims he had a nasty business deal with him, where something went wrong.
Does this mean Mueller is conflicted on three fronts and should he therefore have recused himself? Another question is if you are investigating someone, should the investigators be all partisan? It seems the Mueller team was.
Does this mean Mueller is conflicted on three fronts and should he therefore have recused himself? Another question is if you are investigating someone, should the investigators be all partisan? It seems the Mueller team was.
Yes, the Homeland offices such as CIA, FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. have "Directors" that report to the Secretary of Homeland Defense.
As to the partisan nature of the Mueller team, it didn't seem to make a difference. They STILL didn't discover much. However, the way the USA employment rules work, their political affiliation is not an issue unless they are affiliated with a group that actively seeks to overthrow the U.S. Government. (Which would kill their security clearances.)
As to the partisan nature of the Mueller team, it didn't seem to make a difference. They STILL didn't discover much. However, the way the USA employment rules work, their political affiliation is not an issue unless they are affiliated with a group that actively seeks to overthrow the U.S. Government. (Which would kill their security clearances.)
About 18 months for the big federal elections. In November of 2020 we vote for presidential electors (Electoral College), all members of the House of Representatives, and 1/3 of the Senate. The Senators have staggered terms so every six years each has faced one election. It is not uncommon for us to vote every 6 months on local issues like bonds, tax millages, local judgeships, and other elected officials..