Simmsy

1 hour ago, HoustonSkin said:

You would think, but....

 

Trying make Trump look bad (via investigations and non-stop attacks on his ethics, morality, etc) is not going to get it done.

 

 

All they need to do is let congress handle the investigations and have the candidates run on policy.

I think not releasing the report hurts Trump more than it helps him. I mean, his supporters were going to support him no matter what, that core base was never going to waver. He might've won some more independents over (not enough to win), but the way he has handled this stinks of a cover up. Instead of this going away, the Dems now have all the reason to hold investigations until 2020. Couple that up with a policies that over 70% of American are favorable to...doesn't look good.

22 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Trump's copy is 140 characters. 

He didn't even read it, he heard the summary of a summary. Have you guys ever played the game "Telephone"? Purple monkey dishwasher.

10 hours ago, twa said:

 

seems light if he committed treason 

I guess he has a lot of information, hell, he's still working with prosecutors.

24 minutes ago, twa said:

 

and Mueller recommended no jail time.....odd huh

...because he cooperated, not so odd, eh?

What about Flynn, after the judge read his plea agreement, he was called a traitor.

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

It’s cool. 

 

AG Barr and DAG Rosenstein are the ones doing the redacting. IF they send the report to WH counsel for executive privilege, and they redact so much the report is useless,  Congress should subpoena the **** out of everyone. But until then, I think it is acceptable to let the AG and DAG work on getting a 22 month report completely digested and ready to send to Congress. Everything I have read indicate the Intel Committees will receive the entire report. And I hope a readable version is available for Congress/public consumption.

From what I've heard, doesn't the WH get first whack at redacting it before it is released at all? Honestly, at this point, I don't think it matters. I was willing to believe that he may have not colluded, but there is so much smoke. Just saying, after being "vindicated" I would expect full transparency of the report (minus sensitive intel). I'm going to "Redskins" it, take a shot and maybe hope for a field goal.

9 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

There are processes in place. In fact, we have been discussing them the last couple pages. You don’t get to change the rules because you don’t like the person in charge. Whether he is dumbledorf or not. I hate the guy. He can’t leave office fast enough. But AG Reno put the regs in place. If the report isn’t released to the public, that isn’t because Trump and his crew changed the rules. They would actually be following existing DoJ regs. 

 

But yes, the proper people should be in charge of redacting intelligence (sources, means, methods), national security, and grand jury information. As the law requires. 

I know Reno changed the rules and he can do this. However, to do what he is doing and think that this exonerates him is insane. This isn't aimed at you, the entire notion in general just blows my mind. Once again, I apologize if I came off as aggressive, that was not my intent.

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Ok. You know it all. You should make the rules. 🙄

 

You do realize there are sensitive things going on that the general public doesn’t have a right to know? Like intelligence means, methods, and sources? Oh yeah, no gems jury information can be released either. But yeah, release it all. And if you don’t buy that you are part of his dumb base.

 

Genius. 

Yes, I'm the dumb one. How about we let the guy being investigated decide what gets out and happens during his OWN investigation? After everything that has happened, do you really trust him or his people to do the right thing?

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

I gotcha. 

 

I think the unredacted report should be delivered to the Intelligence Committees, and the redacted version to Congress as a whole. I guess that version can be released publicly...

Screw that, I want the whole thing! Trump is an egotistical narcissist. If he really had all the money he says he has, he'd release his tax returns. If he really was a great student, he wouldn't threaten his alma mater with a lawsuit if they release his grades. If he was truly innocent, he wouldn't block the Mueller report, he would send it out to every single mailbox in America. Only his base is dumb enough to fall for this half brained scheme.

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

What are the odds Trump has read them?

I know thats a joke, but this orange turd couldn't even be bothered to read the 4 page summary of his "exoneration".

Honestly, I hope they never release the report or not until Trump is gone. Trump's "vindication" is only for his base, he didn't win over any liberals and I doubt he gained back any swing voters with this summary. Dems need to focus on their popular policies (the GOP doesn't have any), but they can still push for the unreleased Mueller report and label the GOP as cons.

13 minutes ago, visionary said:

Collins is more worthless and spineless than Graham, I really hope she loses...and maybe gets hit by a bus.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

As a liberal who believes Trump is a garbage human being, I am fine with the Mueller report coming to the conclusion that there is a lack of evidence to suggest Trump/Trump campaign officials conspired with Russian/Obstructed justice.  What bothers me however is that so far we are just hearing Barr say that.  Barr was specifically hired by Trump to be a buffer between the  Mueller report and congress & American people.

 

If Barr were to release the full report (other than anything needing to be redacted out of national security reasons) and it matches the conclusions Barr has come to, then fine. Let's move on.  However, until Barr allows congress to see the whole thing and/or keeps avoiding straight answers on what will be released, why are people so quick to say Barr's statement alone is a good measure of what is actually in the report?

 

Not sure what reason Barr has to not let congress view the actual report in full. 

It pains me to say it, but I whole heartedly agree. Why "nub" it, put your own stamp on it and call it good?

So Barr, took thousands of pages and in less than two days broke it down to a four page summary. In that summary, he said that Mueller said that Trump didn't do it...but may have done it. Why, gee! Thanks, Barr. How about you stop killing your legacy for Trump and let the report speak for itself.

I think this is a good thing, hopefully it won't be too long, but when this report does come out...I think it will be a sucker punch to America.

Of course I don't know this for sure, but I don't think they're going to get Trump for "collusion". Not because he didn't do it, but I think there is enough distance between him and his cronies that they will take the fall. However, I do believe that Mueller gave some of the "juicer" charges to the SDNY prosecutor's office to hit the Trump kids (and possibly Trump himself) with state crimes.

58 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

You need to go back and read through this thread more.  There have been many worthwhile debates.  But making blanket statements like "The gun advocates don't respond to fact or emotion" doesn't exactly make anyone want to have a conversation with you.  I am very much a gun advocate.  I try to be open-minded and do a little give and take.  But from what I have seen, that is an anamoly.  Both sides are stuck on what they want and there is no reasonable comprimise.  

 

If you are expecting our elected leaders to do anything, don't hold your breath.  For them, there can be no compromise.  I've also said before I question how much any politician really wants gun control "fixed".  Then they lose something major that they campaign on.  

I've had this debate hundreds of times, with the republican base around Virginia. The debate here is much more civil, but I'm going to chalk that up to people not wanting to get banned more than anything else. As I've said, I've had this conversation hundreds of times. I've used facts, logic, sympathy, empathy, etc, nothing works. The reason the people for gun legislation are so crass nowadays is because we're sick of trying to compromise. One side of politicians are willing to talk and compromise and the otherside isn't, one side needs to go.

Our leaders will do something when we put the pressure on them to do something or they get voted out. True, their allegiance is to corporate and top 1% donor money, but they can't spend it if they're not in office.

13 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Seeing these post so close together makes me laugh.  

 

And from what I've seen of the posts over the last few hours, you are all wrong.  

I think you're missing the point, objective, subjective...it doesn't matter. The gun advocates don't respond to fact or emotion, I don't see the point in "debating" anymore. At some point someone is going to have to end the "conversation" and pass some effective gun control with or with the input of gun advocates.

It seems to me that for gun rights advocates, their argument or reasons for wanting a gun come down to two things: "Its my right!" and "I need to protect my family". Now how come your right to own a gun is more important than my right to go to the grocery store and not get my head blown off? Why is your right to own a gun more important than the right for someone to peacefully pray at their house of worship or children at school? This argument now sounds selfish and ignorant to me. Your wants and needs are now more important than the lives and safety of every other American in this country? Not very patriotic.

I'm also sick of people needing to protect their families with guns. If you want to keep a gun in your house to protect keep your family safe, I can completely understand that reasoning. However, people who buy guns in case of an apocalypse or in case they need to overthrow the government...you're insane. 

I would also like to add that if you feel the need to take a gun on your hip everywhere you go, you're also whackjob and shouldn't have a gun. I understand that certain people actually need more protection (politicians/celebrities/judges/cops/etc), but regular "Joe Schmo" doesn't need a gun at all times. I'm almost 35 years old and I've never once needed a gun, there was one time where I could've legally shot someone, but even that ended up with no one getting hurt. If you saw someone wearing a helmet and elbow pads everywhere just in case they fell down, you would think of them as unhinged. Just so you know, I've fallen down WAY more than I've ever needed a gun. Go buy a helmet, people.

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Let's wait to see if they actually do anything.  I know zero about the gun culture there but it has been promised here many times to change gun laws.  And it doesn't happen.

It's not that I would rather take a chance with a good samaritan with a gun.  It's that I would rather take a chance with me with a gun.  

 

Though if you want to have a debate on gun control,  there is another thread for that. 

I'm not saying that you or any other gun owner isn't a good person. I'm saying that I would rather not have to rely on a miracle instead of decent regulation.

28 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Would you like me to regale you with some "good guy with a gun" stories?  Because they do exist.

I've found one where a guy killed a mass shooter after he killed everyone and was trying to escape. He didn't save anyone. I find it funny that you would rather take the chance of a good Samaritan with a gun than actually pass some legislation to keep these highly powerful guns out of the hands of whackjob terrorists.

I hate when people dismiss the whole gun control debate with "guns don't kill people, people kill people" (this isn't aimed at anyone in this thread btw). These people are using the gun for what its for, its a tool to kill. How can you say that they're misusing it when they're using it EXACTLY for the reason it was invented?

Can we please stop this "good guy with a gun" dream, it doesn't exist.

I'm a hardcore alcoholic (not bragging, just being honest) and I've done many drugs, but I just can't handle being high. I can smoke, but I can't function or be in public or be social. Also, I hate the actual "smoking" part. I smoke cigarettes, but I don't like smoking weed. I hope to get some gummies one day...and then stay home and be a hermit.

1 minute ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Viola is just one brand.  But there are a whole bunch.  Very easy to make.  Usually put in a pan for 10 minutes over heat stirring occasionally.  Just look in the frozen section.  Birds Eye (or something close to that) makes the Viola ones.  Bertolli ones are pretty legit also.

Cool, I'll give it a shot. On a different note, if you like marinades, I surprisingly recommend wal-mart, they have a lot of good priced choices.