What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The Russia Investigation: Trump Pardons Flynn (10 Viewers)

Koya said:
I am not "telling you" who to speak with or not - but I do believe at some point certain posters who willingly ignore significant on the record fact merit themselves as not beneficial to the overall discussion, and quite the opposite.  And perhaps if these patterns change, it may again be constructive in the overall sense, to engage them.

You can do what you wish in terms of who to converse with - but I think it's fair to point out when someone plays fast and loose with anything truthful or even the most basic of context (as if Trump was the only real estate developer to deal with tax and regulatory changes?).

My contention is that it's not worth the ongoing engagement when we see the same patterns of behavior. That doesn't mean I'm telling you, nor anyone, how to respond on your own, that's your choice.

Just as I've been chided for engaging too often with posters that some label as trolls, and who may engage in similar types of behavior (honestly, I thought at times by your yourself, but I don't know for sure, so won't make that contention), and then reflect and recognize if by doing so it only (1) degrades the conversation and (2) motivates them to continue such detrimental behavior (again, being willfully obtuse, genuinely clueless to the facts, or just looking to spread misinformation while knowing better to advance some agenda).

Finally, just as I won't "tell you" who to respond to or not, so too could I ask that you refrain from telling me to not comment when I feel a certain direction of conversation with a poster known to mislead and ignore essential and known facts and context only serves the end of muddying the waters, imo, on purpose.
Click to expand...
I didn’t tell you not to.  MT edited my post, I assume because he found it inflammatory.  I told you to go perform a physically impossible act.  I then asked you to please stop it at the end of my post. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I didn’t tell you not to.  MT edited my post, I assume because he found it inflammatory.  I told you to go perform a physically impossible act.  I then asked you to please stop it at the end of my post. 
Click to expand...
I probably would have preferred the original version of your post, but glad it didn't result in your getting a T.O.

To the bolded, not sure what act you speak of, but with proper stretching and hot yoga classes, anything is possible.

 
timschochet said:
Remember how many of us, including me, regarded Lindsay Graham as one of those principled conservative senators who would stand up to Trump? His turnabout has been shameful. 
Click to expand...
You need to stop this.  Lindsay Graham did nothing to stand up to Trump.  He talked a lot, but actions speak louder.  None of these people have an ounce of honor.  Republicans believe in party before country to a man.

 
Koya said:
I probably would have preferred the original version of your post, but glad it didn't result in your getting a T.O.

To the bolded, not sure what act you speak of, but with proper stretching and hot yoga classes, anything is possible.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t meant as insulting but rather an exasperated “oh, go perform a perfectly natural procreative process that this country forces us to feel shame about OFF” sort of reply.  I get the “don’t bother talking to him” response a lot.  I don’t listen to it.  Really, ever.  And it usually makes me want to engage in a several page long dialogue with the person at issue instead.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
I’m not a psychologist, and even if I were I don’t know that I could diagnosis a sociopath from a television interview, but if it were possible, consider him diagnosed.  I see why he’s been compared to Goebbels.  
Click to expand...
Sociopaths can have a superficial charm. Miller wishes he had that. He looks like they dug up a body, gave it some makeup and botox, then threw it on tv.

 
Slapdash said:
I personally get disappointed every time I click in here and see some back and forth that has nothing to do with the most important investigation in decades. Hot yoga pics would be OK, but not of Koya
Click to expand...
YOU WON'T BODY SHAME ME!

 
mr roboto said:
TIL @Henry Ford  is a very calm and rational man but somehow telling him who he should and should not bother responding to make him unreasonably mildly perturbed. 
Click to expand...
It just drives me crazy.  The whole problem with American politics right now is that we refuse to just talk to each other.  So why tell people not to talk to each other?

Edit: per MT’s instructions I have edited your post. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
It just drives me crazy.  The whole problem with American politics right now is that we refuse to just talk to each other.  So why tell people not to talk to each other?

Edit: per MT’s instructions I have edited your post. 
Click to expand...
I would argue the problem is we talk to too many people when we really shouldn't. Fringe lunatics are given a platform when they should largely be ignored. A platform equals credibility. Credibility gives a larger platform. And it continues until crazy is treated as though it's perfectly normal. 

 
Hilts said:
I would argue the problem is we talk to too many people when we really shouldn't. Fringe lunatics are given a platform when they should largely be ignored. A platform equals credibility. Credibility gives a larger platform. And it continues until crazy is treated as though it's perfectly normal. 
Click to expand...
And I would argue that if we just let people talk instead of setting the entire neighborhood on fire with protests they’d fade away into obscurity.  Instead, we scream and howl about how worthless and awful and terrible they are and they become Milo Yiannopoulos and the President. 

 
Henry Ford said:
And I would argue that if we just let people talk instead of setting the entire neighborhood on fire with protests they’d fade away into obscurity.  Instead, we scream and howl about how worthless and awful and terrible they are and they become Milo Yiannopoulos and the President. 
Click to expand...
I agree we shouldn't scream about them. We should just ignore them. 

 
Henry Ford said:
It just drives me crazy.  The whole problem with American politics right now is that we refuse to just talk to each other.  So why tell people not to talk to each other?

Edit: per MT’s instructions I have edited your post. 
Click to expand...
I get it but there are posters who clearly have no interest in a real discussion. They’ve proven it over and over. Come in with talking points they refuse to defend (or can’t). 

So as a community here I guess we all get tired of scrolling through posts filled with well-meaning posters engaging with disingenuous ones. It can clog up a thread. 

Now, if someone is clearly on a certain side of the debate but will actually respond to questions/criticism then great. 

 
Henry Ford said:
And I would argue that if we just let people talk instead of setting the entire neighborhood on fire with protests they’d fade away into obscurity.  Instead, we scream and howl about how worthless and awful and terrible they are and they become Milo Yiannopoulos and the President. 
Click to expand...
No one is prohibiting them from saying what they wish. Let them "talk" all they want. We don't have to answer, especially when essentially being baited into a one sided discourse, since they've shown no willingness to engage in an objectively fair manner.

We don't need to indulge folks who repeatedly show disdain for any objective fact and truth, who won't answer direct questions nor engage in legitimate discussion, and who show zero propensity for actually adjusting their opinions if shown strong and demonstrable evidence to do so. 

Worse yet, many of us feel it is the ultimate goal of some posters to not actually engage in constructive conversation at all, but rather to dissolve and destroy the discourse, at least on topics where any fair and objective discussion would rationally conclude strong negatives which they refuse to face (i.e.: Trump being a failed businessman, not respected as one by nearly any of his peers, and not trusted by any american financial institutions as such. Or in other cases, the unquestionable sexist views and past history of admitted assault by Trump, same with racist and nationalist viewpoints and either supporting them/those espousing such believes or, at best, not condemning them).

So, while you engage with these folks in discourse, they are (perhaps purposefully, and joyfully even at times) mucking up the conversation with zero positive benefit, since they have demonstrated no intent to learn nor engage in a genuine manner, themselves. 

Again, we are talking about people with months and months of these patterns of behavior.  And I do get called out for engaging them at times because like you, I do believe there is a benefit to at least setting the record straight. But lets not be foolish as if these folks really want to "talk" in some fair and objective manner.  Sadly, it often appears quite the opposite. 

 
Hilts said:
I would argue the problem is we talk to too many people when we really shouldn't. Fringe lunatics are given a platform when they should largely be ignored. A platform equals credibility. Credibility gives a larger platform. And it continues until crazy is treated as though it's perfectly normal. 
Click to expand...
These guys are running our country right now maybe they're not as fringe as you think.

 
mr roboto said:
I get it but there are posters who clearly have no interest in a real discussion. They’ve proven it over and over. Come in with talking points they refuse to defend (or can’t). 

So as a community here I guess we all get tired of scrolling through posts filled with well-meaning posters engaging with disingenuous ones. It can clog up a thread. 

Now, if someone is clearly on a certain side of the debate but will actually respond to questions/criticism then great. 
Click to expand...
I’m sorry it bothers you.  However, that’s not my primary concern when talking to people. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I’m sorry it bothers you.  However, that’s not my primary concern when talking to people. 
Click to expand...
Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Ford was to remember that distant afternoon when he first bothered someone without regret.

 
Sinn Fein said:
I'd put the odds that he has "nothing" to hide, "somewhere between infinitesimally small and zero."
Click to expand...
I concur. But it's nice when his actions admit it. 

Sad thing is, Trump will not want to testify and his supporters still won't understand what that is saying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Hmmm...what a coincidence...

Natalia Veselnitskaya told NBC News that when she was departing Trump Tower after the June ‘16 meeting and waiting for an elevator, she exchanged pleasantries with a woman whom she believed was Ivanka. Separately, another source says the woman was Ivanka.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/russian-ran-ivanka-after-2016-trump-tower-meeting-donald-trump-n835661
Click to expand...
so when's it going to come out that she happened also to bump into someone who looked a lot like Donald Trump but it wasn't a "meeting".....so basically Natalia met with/ran into the President's son and daughter (the ones who count), son in law and head of the campaign but somehow no one mentions these meetings IN TRUMPs BUILDING that he's in at the time of these meetings when the subject of the meeting was supposed to be dirt on Clinton (which he wanted more than anything else)?  sound believable....  

 
Sinn Fein said:
Initial talks underway about Trump interview in Mueller Russia probe

:popcorn:   

If they agree on anything other that written responses to questions - Trump's attorneys should be sued for malpractice
Click to expand...
Kyle Griffin‏ @kylegriffin1 4h4 hours ago

Trump’s legal team is discussing a range of responses to a possible interview request from Mueller, including written answers to questions in lieu of a formal sit-down, three people familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

“Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification on whether the president would be interviewed directly by Mueller, as well as the legal standard for when a president can be interviewed, the location of a possible interview, the topics and the duration.”

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Hour long pod that's a fairly clear accounting of Russia investigation to date with the Executive Editor of Lawfare.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit further into this now and it's a good discussion.

Though it suffers from the same problem that a lot of the commentary has -- especially early in the story.  Which is that reasonable people who've only ever dealt with other reasonable people have a hard time imagining that the simplest explanation for the activities of the Trump campaign are actually the most likely explanations.

It's naive IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Kyle Griffin‏ @kylegriffin1 4h4 hours ago

Trump’s legal team is discussing a range of responses to a possible interview request from Mueller, including written answers to questions in lieu of a formal sit-down, three people familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

“Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification on whether the president would be interviewed directly by Mueller, as well as the legal standard for when a president can be interviewed, the location of a possible interview, the topics and the duration.”
Click to expand...
Talk to me about why the POTUS is held to a different standard than others in regards to answering a subpoena from the DOJ?  Or are they requesting an interview without subpoena? 

 
The Z Machine said:
Talk to me about why the POTUS is held to a different standard than others in regards to answering a subpoena from the DOJ?  Or are they requesting an interview without subpoena? 
Click to expand...
There is some question in legal circles as to whether the POTUS can be compelled to answer questions via subpoena. Mueller's team would rather avoid going that route, and it was noted in the above NBC link:

With the possibility now looming that the president himself could be subject to an interview by the FBI or Mueller's investigators, Trump's legal team has been debating whether it would be possible to simply avoid it.
Click to expand...

 
squistion said:
Kyle Griffin‏ @kylegriffin1 4h4 hours ago

Trump’s legal team is discussing a range of responses to a possible interview request from Mueller, including written answers to questions in lieu of a formal sit-down, three people familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

“Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification on whether the president would be interviewed directly by Mueller, as well as the legal standard for when a president can be interviewed, the location of a possible interview, the topics and the duration.”
Click to expand...
was Clinton not a president?  Of course President's can be interviewed.

 
squistion said:
Kyle Griffin‏ @kylegriffin1 4h4 hours ago

Trump’s legal team is discussing a range of responses to a possible interview request from Mueller, including written answers to questions in lieu of a formal sit-down, three people familiar with the matter tell NBC News.

“Trump’s legal team is seeking clarification on whether the president would be interviewed directly by Mueller, as well as the legal standard for when a president can be interviewed, the location of a possible interview, the topics and the duration.”
Click to expand...
Please make this happen.  With his #### show legal team, they will perjure themselves even with written answers.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
dozer
Ret. Lt. Gen Mike Flynn
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
Genxersrule
G
G
Mueller Investigation - Common Misconceptions (1-10)
Replies
0
Views
195
Guest
G

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top