• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump approval drops after Report

hanger4 said:
Nothing in post #40 changes this haymarket;

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Mueller's quote clearly states no evidence was found to establish that the Trump Campaign conspired and or coordinated with the Russians.
Click to expand...

And the blatant dishonesty on your part continues as your defining tactic as post 40 explains in detail.

"The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian Government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen trough Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities. "
Click to expand...

I could see Barr using half of a sentence to set the national narrative and fool the public by doing so hoping to help Trump. But you now have the whole sentence and are still using half. That is fundamentally dishonest since the first sentence states the Trump campaign cooperation with the Russians over numerous times. The first half of the second sentence (the one Barr edited and cherry picked) changes considerably with the complete material as it explains a two way street benefitting both Trump and the Russians and the Trump campaign willingly used stolen Russian material to their advantage.

That additional material changes everything. And it tells you why Barr was dishonest weeks ago and why you continue to be in its use when the complete sentence is available to you.
 
Last edited:
hanger4 said:
What changed haymarket ??


“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Did the Trump Campaign conspire and coordinate with the Russians ?? Did Mueller lie ??
Click to expand...

Barr wanted you to have a few weeks to slam-dunk his nothing burger. You know, the part of the sentence without this:
The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian Government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen trough Russian efforts...
 
haymarket said:
And the blatant dishonesty on your part continues as your defining tactic as post 40 explains in detail.



I could see Barr using half of a sentence to set the national narrative and fool the public by doing so hoping to help Trump. But you now have the whole sentence and are still using half. That is fundamentally dishonest since the first sentence states the Trump campaign cooperation with the Russians over numerous times. The first half of the second sentence (the one Barr edited and cherry picked) changes considerably with the complete material as it explains a two way street benefitting both Trump and the Russians and the Trump campaign willingly used stolen Russian material to their advantage.

That additional material changes everything. And it tells you why Barr was dishonest weeks ago and why you continue to be in its use when the complete sentence is available to you.
Click to expand...

Barr wasn't dishonest nor am I this;

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities."

did not change. Hell you can't even describe how it changed. Did Mueller find evidence of a Trump Campaign Russian conspiracy ?? And if so why did he lie ??
 
hanger4 said:
Nothing in post #40 changes this haymarket;

“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Mueller's quote clearly states no evidence was found to establish that the Trump Campaign conspired and or coordinated with the Russians.
Click to expand...

It changes radically. Post 51 explains it all. As a courtesy to you, here it is again


"The investigation also identified numerous links between the Russian Government and the Trump Campaign. Although the investigation established that the Russian Government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen trough Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities. "
Click to expand...


I could see Barr using half of a sentence to set the national narrative and fool the public by doing so hoping to help Trump. But you now have the whole sentence and are still using half. That is fundamentally dishonest since the first sentence states the Trump campaign cooperation with the Russians over numerous times. The first half of the second sentence (the one Barr edited and cherry picked) changes considerably with the complete material as it explains a two way street benefitting both Trump and the Russians and the Trump campaign willingly used stolen Russian material to their advantage.

That additional material changes everything. And it tells you why Barr was dishonest weeks ago and why you continue to be in its use when the complete sentence is available to you.
 
haymarket said:
I doubt it will ever drop to more than a third. Trump knows his base well and knows he indeed could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and it would not cost him votes. And that is something to be ashamed of as a people.
Click to expand...
Trumpsters haven proven they have no shame (or critical thinking skills).
 
haymarket said:
It changes radically. Post 51 explains it all. As a courtesy to you, here it is again





I could see Barr using half of a sentence to set the national narrative and fool the public by doing so hoping to help Trump. But you now have the whole sentence and are still using half. That is fundamentally dishonest since the first sentence states the Trump campaign cooperation with the Russians over numerous times. The first half of the second sentence (the one Barr edited and cherry picked) changes considerably with the complete material as it explains a two way street benefitting both Trump and the Russians and the Trump campaign willingly used stolen Russian material to their advantage.

That additional material changes everything. And it tells you why Barr was dishonest weeks ago and why you continue to be in its use when the complete sentence is available to you.
Click to expand...

So Mueller did find evidence of a Trump Campaign Russian conspiracy and lied about it ??

That's the only way his quote changes haymarket, he either established a Trump Campaign Russian conspiracy or he did not.
 
hanger4 said:
What part of "did not conspire" and "did not coordinate" in Mueller's statement didn't you understand ??
Click to expand...

Apparently the parts that exist in your ideological fantasies. This is the post to which you responded:

"He wasn't vindicated on collusion. Barr is wrong about that. The report expressly states that Mueller did not consider collusion (which we know occurred in the Trump Tower meeting and elsewhere) because collusion is not a legal avenue of inquiry. Mueller considered criminal conspiracy, i.e., an agreement beneficial to both sides to work together toward the unlawful end of influencing the election. The report suggests Trump was open to such a conspiracy but his campaign never succeeded in putting it together."

Barr in his press conference said three times that Mueller specifically found there was "no collusion" when Mueller did not find that but rather pointed out the difference in his report between collusion and conspiracy and said that he made no finding on collusion but did find there was not a conspiracy.
 
hanger4 said:
So Mueller did find evidence of a Trump Campaign Russian conspiracy and lied about it ??

That's the only way his quote changes haymarket, he either established a Trump Campaign Russian conspiracy or he did not.
Click to expand...

Mueller found lots of things with the Trump campaign and Russia. And post 51 explains why it is intellectually dishonest to use half of the sentence like Barr did and line you insist on doing.
 
haymarket said:
Mueller found lots of things with the Trump campaign and Russia. And post 51 explains why it is intellectually dishonest to use half of the sentence like Barr did and line you insist on doing.
Click to expand...

The quote still hasn't changed haymarket. Mueller found no evidence the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Ruskies.
 
hanger4 said:
Barr wasn't dishonest nor am I this;

"the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities."

did not change. Hell you can't even describe how it changed. Did Mueller find evidence of a Trump Campaign Russian conspiracy ?? And if so why did he lie ??
Click to expand...

Why are you asking questions again after it was all explained to you in 51?
 
hanger4 said:
The quote still hasn't changed haymarket. Mueller found no evidence the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Ruskies.
Click to expand...

All this was explained to you previously - playing deaf and dumb and repeating what has already been covered is not a good look for you.
 
Last edited:
JustHanging said:
Don't forget, Trump's base looks up to Trump morally. He represents their morals and principles.

Would Trump care about any of this? So why would his base?
Click to expand...

As long as his base is down in the thirties - let them be morally bankrupt.
 
haymarket said:
All this was explained to you previously - playing deaf and dumb and repeating what has already been covered is not a good look for you.
Click to expand...

And they will continue to play deaf and dumb. Or perhaps not play, but just are? They have no other option but to plug their ears, close their eyes, and chant whatever Trump wants them to chant. For many, that's likely the only way they can be "winners," just like Dear Leader.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
As long as his base is down in the thirties - let them be morally bankrupt.
Click to expand...

That's enough to win an election if the Russians can repeat 2016 and discourage enough Dems and independents from voting.

We haven't heard from Putin yet, and he'll obviously have a lot to say. Getting Trump elected is surely the biggest Russian coup in the history of Russian/American relations. Trump stood on a public stage, united with Putin, against the entire American Intelligence community. Wow.
 
haymarket said:
If you understand the science of polling, their methodology is normal and accepted in the industry.
Click to expand...

Then how did they fail to predict the hildabeast losing?
 
haymarket said:
If you understand the science of polling, their methodology is normal and accepted in the industry.
Click to expand...

You should not get so giddy about 1 poll that historically uses methods that tends to rate Trump at the low point of the norm:
Wow, RCP average 44%

RCP Average 4/1 - 4/18 -- 43.9 52.1 -8.2

Rasmussen Reports 4/16 - 4/18 1500 LV 49 51 -2
The Hill/HarrisX 4/15 - 4/16 1000 RV 46 54 -8
Reuters/Ipsos 4/15 - 4/16 1006 A 40 56 -16
FOX News 4/14 - 4/16 1005 RV 45 51 -6
Economist/YouGov 4/13 - 4/16 1186 RV 43 52 -9
Monmouth 4/11 - 4/15 711 RV 40 54 -14
Politico/Morning Consult 4/12 - 4/14 1998 RV 44 51 -7
Emerson 4/11 - 4/14 914 RV 43 49 -6
Gallup 4/1 - 4/9 1012 A 45 51 -6
 
JackA said:
Apparently the parts that exist in your ideological fantasies. This is the post to which you responded:

"He wasn't vindicated on collusion. Barr is wrong about that. The report expressly states that Mueller did not consider collusion (which we know occurred in the Trump Tower meeting and elsewhere) because collusion is not a legal avenue of inquiry. Mueller considered criminal conspiracy, i.e., an agreement beneficial to both sides to work together toward the unlawful end of influencing the election. The report suggests Trump was open to such a conspiracy but his campaign never succeeded in putting it together."

Barr in his press conference said three times that Mueller specifically found there was "no collusion" when Mueller did not find that but rather pointed out the difference in his report between collusion and conspiracy and said that he made no finding on collusion but did find there was not a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Why did Mueller investigate criminal conspiracy? We were told Trump was bing investigated for collusion not conspiracy.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
RaleBulgarian said:
The investigation of possible collusion was not a hoax. That fact has even been acknowledged by the current AG.

Interesting that you didn’t mention obstruction.
Click to expand...

I didnt mention obstruction because its a crock.
 
haymarket said:
Sadly, those polls WERE NOT taken after the public got to read the Mueller report. Which is why I reprinted the one here that did.
Click to expand...

The redacted version was released on April 18th and the report was give to Barr on the 22nd of March. The three point dropped poll was released on the 9th of April which Reuters/Ipsos released a newer one on the 16th, before the redacted version. All of RCP polls are on the 9th or after to include a new Reuters/Ipsos poll on the 16th.

We really have no poll after the redacted version release. Beside it takes a week, perhaps more for any new information to sink in.
 
Fletch said:
No it isnt. Trump was vindicated on the collusion lie and that has left you grasping at any straw you can find amongst the rubble.
Click to expand...

Fletch, why don't you go to my thread "one simple question for Trump supporters" and give us your opinion on the OP?
 
trouble13 said:
Why did Mueller investigate criminal conspiracy? We were told Trump was bing investigated for collusion not conspiracy.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You weren’t told that by the investigator. It was pointed out repeatedly over the months that collusion is a generic word, not a criminal offense, and conspiracy had to be the charge under investigation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom