***Official Political Discussion Thread***

whywesteppin said:
Thanos is not a criminal. He is a hero. And there were no other plot twists in Avengers: Endgame. It was a terrible movie. People were throwing out words like genocide. Time travel dominated the media for months. It was consistently called a bad movie by Twitter. And it ended with no time travel or any major characters coming back to life. If it's not a dud, what is it? Because random new characters and love stories hardly seems like a solid plotline.

It is not me that moved the goalposts. In the end, people wanted a movie that firmly tied together the entire Marvel universe. Ostensibly because they don't want to feel like they wasted their money. Endgame did no such thing.
Click to expand...

whywesteppin said:
Jon Snow is not the prince who was promised. Bran Stark was. And there was no epic battle between the ice dragons and Dany's dragons, or her army, in the final season of Game of Thrones. People were throwing out words like "better than the Wire." Game of Thrones Season 8 dominated the media for months. It was consistently called the television event of 2019 by Twitter. And Season 8 has ended with no explanation for the White Walkers. If it's not a dud, what is it? Because random flashbacks by Bran to people who did impactful things years before the current timeline hardly seem like the aim of this season.

It is not me that moved the goalposts. In the end, people wanted to see if Jon or Dany would sit on the Iron Throne. Ostensibly because they are popular characters. Season 8 did no such thing.



Duke is not a championship team. North Carolina is. And there were no impressive plays by Zion, or his team, in this year's March Madness. People were throwing out words like "born winners." Duke basketball dominated the media for months. It was consistently called overrated by Skip Bayless. And the tournament has ended with no championship related to Duke. If it's not a dud, what is it? Because random dunk videos on instagram from people years before they choked on their free throws in the Final Four hardly seem like the top college prospect in the country.

It is not me that moved the goalposts. In the end, people wanted to see this Duke team go all the way. Ostensibly because they think Zion's dunks are cool. They did no such thing.
Click to expand...

It took me a minute but this was :rofl: :rofl:
 
Why do right wing chumps disappear after their cards are pulled? That said, white people be damned, it is time for forty acres and a mule. White people have had a head start for four hundred years. If that isn’t a big enough of a welfare head start, take your asses back to where their people came from in the first place, then apologizing to the native americans while giving EVERYTHING back. Who cares about what white people think? They screwed up, messed up the entire planet! :lol:
 
blastercombo said:
“Muller report was nothing”


Yes, 34 different people brought in but “nothing” lol. Idiots won’t get that though
Click to expand...

No one was charged, nor convicted, of conspiracy with Russia to influence the 2016 election. And they’ve stated there would be no further indictments. Meaning no one in Trump’s campaign will be indicted for conspiracy with Russia to influence the 2016 election. That was the narrow focus of the probe. Random tax/bank fraud has nothing to do with that. As it relates to Russian collusion, it was a witch hunt.
 
Belgium said:
You're mischaracterizing, as usual, both Mueller's mandate and the nature of the actual charges he brought. Because you're a lawyer, the omissions and mischaracterizations should be taken as deliberate disingenuity.
Click to expand...

You’re making conclusory statements. You’re providing no reasoning. What I’m stating is not a mischaracterization. There have been no indictments or convictions as it relates to Russian collusion/conspiracy from the mueller probe. He’s stated there would be no more indictments. The fact that you are saying I’m mischaracterizing, but can’t articulate how, is telling.
 
US National Debt Has Increased $2 Trillion Since Donald Trump Took Office, New Data Shows
President reportedly not concerned because 'I won't be there'
trump-debt.jpg

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ury-congressional-budget-office-a8710546.html

The US national debt has increased by more than $2 trillion dollars since Donald Trump entered the White House, according to new data.

Figures released by the Treasury Department showed the debt stood at $21.974 trillion at the end of 2018, more than $2 trillion higher than when Mr Trump took office.

The debt stood represented 78 per cent of the US’s gross domestic product (GDP) in the fiscal year 2018, the highest percentage since 1950, analysis by CNN concluded.

The deficit, which measures the difference between what the government spends and what it collects, rose to 3.8 per cent of GDP in 2018, up from 3.5 per cent in 2017.

The national debt has been rising in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when Congress and Barack Obama approved stimulus funding in order to keep the economy afloat.
When Mr Trump first took office, having vowed to reduce it to zero in eight years it, it began to go down.

But analysts say it started to increase again as a result of a Republican tax cut, passed at the end of 2017, that a represented the largest of its kind in a generation.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, debt could grow to 96 per cent of GDP (or $29 trillion) by 2028.

“Three decades from now, for instance, debt held by the public is projected to be about twice as high in relation to GDP as it is this year—which would be a higher ratio than the United States has ever recorded,” it said in a new report.

“Such high and rising debt would have serious consequences, both for the economy and for the federal budget. Federal spending on interest payments would rise substantially as a result of increases in interest rates, such as those projected to occur over the next few years.”


When he was campaigning for the White House, Mr Trump said he believed he could make the US debt free within eight years.

“I think I could do it fairly quickly,” he told The Washington Post.

To address the debt, Mr Trump in October announced an initiative to cut spending by five per cent across the various departments of his cabinet.

However, last year the Daily Beast website reported the president had privately expressed little concern about the numbers because “I won’t be here”.
Click to expand...
 
dwalk31 said:
No one was charged, nor convicted, of conspiracy with Russia to influence the 2016 election. And they’ve stated there would be no further indictments. Meaning no one in Trump’s campaign will be indicted for conspiracy with Russia to influence the 2016 election. That was the narrow focus of the probe. Random tax/bank fraud has nothing to do with that. As it relates to Russian collusion, it was a witch hunt.
Click to expand...
Have you read the Mueller report? Have you read what the other various investigations have found or concluded?
 
blastercombo said:
This dude really raises the national debt in order to help relieve his own. Brilliant move
Click to expand...

When he's finally gone it will be really funny to watch his followers/enablers pretend to be shocked and outraged by what he pulled off right in front of their faces.

Probably will blame the democrats for not stopping him soon enough.
 
noskey said:
Have you read the Mueller report? Have you read what the other various investigations have found or concluded?
Click to expand...

I have not read the report. And you don't need to read the report to make the statements I made. My comments are narrowly focused on the mueller probe.
 
dwalk31 said:
You’re making conclusory statements. You’re providing no reasoning. What I’m stating is not a mischaracterization. There have been no indictments or convictions as it relates to Russian collusion/conspiracy from the mueller probe. He’s stated there would be no more indictments. The fact that you are saying I’m mischaracterizing, but can’t articulate how, is telling.
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered why you have consistently refrained from acknowledging a major component of the Mueller investigation. Even after giving you a very easy hint (see: Mueller's written questions to Trump) you refrained from acknowledging that component or explain why you've spent so much time avoiding any mention of it. It's not that you haven't mentioned it at all, just very rarely.

dwalk31 said:
Collusion is not a crime. But conspiracy is. And there were no indictments for conspiracy by trump, or his campaign, with Russia to influence the 2016 election. People were throwing out words like treason. Russian collusion dominated the media for months. It was consistently called a witch hunt by Trump. And it has ended with no indictments related to said conspiracy. If it’s not a dud, what is it? Because random indictments from people who committed tax/bank fraud years before they worked for Trump hardly seem like the aim of the probe.
Click to expand...
By definition that is in fact part of the aim of the probe, according to Mueller's mandate.
970add07f86c6cd45f9a6a1ec681ddb4.png

The underlined is a significant mischaracterization for a variety of reasons.

As I'm sure you're aware, there were in fact only 2 individuals charged with tax and bank fraud by Mueller and one of them got the charges dropped by becoming a cooperator.
You also know that the one person who got convicted on tax/bank fraud charges did not just commit crimes "years before they worked for Trump". Because you're aware of this, if not you shouldn't have said anything in the first place, it suggests you're deliberately downsizing the litany of crimes Manafort committed. I'd like to know why, that's all.

Not only that, you're also lying about Manafort's bank fraud charges. Again I'm taking your word as a lawyer, who ideally should be informed when speaking on legal matters.
You see, according to Manafort's conviction he defrauded or attempted to defraud banks "between 2015 and early 2017."
I think you'll agree that "2015 to early 2017" is not in fact "years before they worked for Trump."

There were several charges in Manafort's indictments concerning financial crimes committed throughout 2016. He wasn't convicted on all of them due to the lone holdout juror who blocked a bunch of charges.
However, Manafort later pleaded guilty and admitted to the bank fraud charges that were blocked by the lone holdout. That included charges of bank fraud that took place between April and November 2016. In other words, while Manafort was leading the Trump campaign.

What was that about "bank fraud years before they worked for Trump" again?

Even when you're trying to significantly downsize Manafort's crimespree for whatever reason, you can't help but include a laughable false claim to further diminish the parts of the charges you're willing to acknowledge.
You're well aware that Manafort was not just convicted on financial charges, and you also know that some of those additional crimes are neither a financial charge, nor something that happened before the 2016 election.


In November 2016 and February 2017, Manafort and Gates conspired to knowingly and intentionally cause letters containing false statements to be submitted to the DOJ through their unwitting counsel. Manafort pleaded guilty to this conduct as part of his conspiracy against the US charge.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you that is not a financial crime, and I don't believe November 2016 and February 2017 count as "years before they worked for Trump."

Also as part of this plea, Manafort admitted to conspiracy to launder money. This is indeed a financial crime but the criminal conduct occurred "in or around and between 2006 and 2016."


Additionally, you're also aware that "between February 23 2018 and April 2018", Manafort conspired to obstruct the Mueller investigation in coordination with former GRU officer Konstantin Kilimnik, who was assessed by the FBI to have active Russian intelligence ties throughout 2016 and operated as a liaison for Oleg Deripaska.
Manafort was initially charged with both obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct justice but pleaded guilty to just the count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Manafort and Kilimnik conspired to tamper with witnesses in order to corruptly influence or prevent their testimony.

Lastly, judge Jackson also found that Manafort repeatedly and deliberately lied to the Special Counsel in violation of his cooperation agreement, though she did not agree that all of the alleged lies were sufficiently proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Jackson did not agree his statements about contacts with the Trump administration met that standard for example. While she displayed strong concern about Manafort's lies about matters involving Kilimnik that were "core to what the Special Counsel is tasked with investigating", she did not agree with one alleged lie about Kilimnik's role in the witness tampering conspiracy.
Even then Manafort still continued lying and lying, though prosecutors indicated they didn't feel it was worth prosecuting Manafort again.

And yet here you are, a lawyer who for some reason insists on lying about the nature of Manafort's crimes, lying about the crimes he was charged with, lying about when the criminal conduct occurred, ...
 
Belgium said:
You still haven't answered why you have consistently refrained from acknowledging a major component of the Mueller investigation. Even after giving you a very easy hint (see: Mueller's written questions to Trump) you refrained from acknowledging that component or explain why you've spent so much time avoiding any mention of it. It's not that you haven't mentioned it at all, just very rarely.


By definition that is in fact part of the aim of the probe, according to Mueller's mandate.
970add07f86c6cd45f9a6a1ec681ddb4.png

The underlined is a significant mischaracterization for a variety of reasons.

As I'm sure you're aware, there were in fact only 2 individuals charged with tax and bank fraud by Mueller and one of them got the charges dropped by becoming a cooperator.
You also know that the one person who got convicted on tax/bank fraud charges did not just commit crimes "years before they worked for Trump". Because you're aware of this, if not you shouldn't have said anything in the first place, it suggests you're deliberately downsizing the litany of crimes Manafort committed. I'd like to know why, that's all.

Not only that, you're also lying about Manafort's bank fraud charges. Again I'm taking your word as a lawyer, who ideally should be informed when speaking on legal matters.
You see, according to Manafort's conviction he defrauded or attempted to defraud banks "between 2015 and early 2017."
I think you'll agree that "2015 to early 2017" is not in fact "years before they worked for Trump."

There were several charges in Manafort's indictments concerning financial crimes committed throughout 2016. He wasn't convicted on all of them due to the lone holdout juror who blocked a bunch of charges.
However, Manafort later pleaded guilty and admitted to the bank fraud charges that were blocked by the lone holdout. That included charges of bank fraud that took place between April and November 2016. In other words, while Manafort was leading the Trump campaign.

What was that about "bank fraud years before they worked for Trump" again?

Even when you're trying to significantly downsize Manafort's crimespree for whatever reason, you can't help but include a laughable false claim to further diminish the parts of the charges you're willing to acknowledge.
You're well aware that Manafort was not just convicted on financial charges, and you also know that some of those additional crimes are neither a financial charge, nor something that happened before the 2016 election.


In November 2016 and February 2017, Manafort and Gates conspired to knowingly and intentionally cause letters containing false statements to be submitted to the DOJ through their unwitting counsel. Manafort pleaded guilty to this conduct as part of his conspiracy against the US charge.
I'm sure I don't need to tell you that is not a financial crime, and I don't believe November 2016 and February 2017 count as "years before they worked for Trump."

Also as part of this plea, Manafort admitted to conspiracy to launder money. This is indeed a financial crime but the criminal conduct occurred "in or around and between 2006 and 2016."


Additionally, you're also aware that "between February 23 2018 and April 2018", Manafort conspired to obstruct the Mueller investigation in coordination with former GRU officer Konstantin Kilimnik, who was assessed by the FBI to have active Russian intelligence ties throughout 2016 and operated as a liaison for Oleg Deripaska.
Manafort was initially charged with both obstruction and conspiracy to obstruct justice but pleaded guilty to just the count of conspiracy to obstruct justice. Manafort and Kilimnik conspired to tamper with witnesses in order to corruptly influence or prevent their testimony.

Lastly, judge Jackson also found that Manafort repeatedly and deliberately lied to the Special Counsel in violation of his cooperation agreement, though she did not agree that all of the alleged lies were sufficiently proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Jackson did not agree his statements about contacts with the Trump administration met that standard for example. While she displayed strong concern about Manafort's lies about matters involving Kilimnik that were "core to what the Special Counsel is tasked with investigating", she did not agree with one alleged lie about Kilimnik's role in the witness tampering conspiracy.
Even then Manafort still continued lying and lying, though prosecutors indicated they didn't feel it was worth prosecuting Manafort again.

And yet here you are, a lawyer who for some reason insists on lying about the nature of Manafort's crimes, lying about the crimes he was charged with, lying about when the criminal conduct occurred, ...
Click to expand...

I will take your post as true. Which I will gladly concede. NONE of the indictments or convictions have anything to do with Trump, or his campaign, colluding/in conspiracy with Russia to influence the 2016 election. True or false?

By analogy this would be like Hillary getting elected. And a 2-year investigation into her emails. And several people connected with her getting indicted/pleading to bank/tax fraud or lying/obstruction of justice. The "when" they committed tax/bank fraud doesn't matter (to me at least). The substantive matter of the charges is what matters. You cite a catchall provision that falls on the interpretation of "directly.

If you think this is anything other than a vindication of Trump, and his campaign team, as it relates to Russian collusion to influence the 2016 election, then we can agree to disagree.

And I legit didn't know that was the point you were making. I disagree that it is a relevant nuance.
 
dwalk31 said:
You’re making conclusory statements. You’re providing no reasoning. What I’m stating is not a mischaracterization. There have been no indictments or convictions as it relates to Russian collusion/conspiracy from the mueller probe. He’s stated there would be no more indictments. The fact that you are saying I’m mischaracterizing, but can’t articulate how, is telling.
Click to expand...
Sea lyin'.
 
dwalk31 said:
I will take your post as true. Which I will gladly concede. NONE of the indictments or convictions have anything to do with Trump, or his campaign, colluding/in conspiracy with Russia to influence the 2016 election. True or false?

By analogy this would be like Hillary getting elected. And a 2-year investigation into her emails. And several people connected with her getting indicted/pleading to bank/tax fraud or lying/obstruction of justice. The "when" they committed tax/bank fraud doesn't matter (to me at least). The substantive matter of the charges is what matters. You cite a catchall provision that falls on the interpretation of "directly.

If you think this is anything other than a vindication of Trump, and his campaign team, as it relates to Russian collusion to influence the 2016 election, then we can agree to disagree.

And I legit didn't know that was the point you were making. I disagree that it is a relevant nuance.
Click to expand...
If neither the "when" or the "what" matter to you, that's kind of hard to square with your repeated downsizing of Manafort's crimespree and lying about the crimes.

"These are all crimes from years before the campaign/election" was a lie that Trump brought up all the time to diminish Manafort's crimes. You're doing the exact same thing for what appears to be the exact same reason.

Again I would just like to know what your interest is in doing the same, even at this point when Mueller's investigation is formally over and Manafort has been sentenced.

As for the major component of the Mueller investigation that you've danced around since Mueller's appointment, it's the obstruction of justice inquiry. Why is it that you're not parading "no obstruction" around?
 
AEA18 said:
When he's finally gone it will be really funny to watch his followers/enablers pretend to be shocked and outraged by what he pulled off right in front of their faces.

Probably will blame the democrats for not stopping him soon enough.
Click to expand...
Said it before and I’ll say it again, this whole show is just to open two new hotels overseas. Trump doesn’t have the money he says so he’s doing them solids to make up for his horrible credit
 
There's really no ambiguity or uncertainty about the following:

1) Russia committed crimes to help Trump get elected.

2) Trump knew about these crimes and called publicly for them to be committed.

3) Many in Trump's circle have been found to be corrupt and in communication with Russia.

4) Trump publicly admitted he committed actions to stop the Russia probe.

Whether the legal standards are met to prosecute a sitting president for #2 or #4, I don't know. Mueller either feels that it doesn't, or he passed it off to other investigative bodies, or he did include it in his report but didn't indict for other reasons.

Now, if we believe the GOP/Trump talking points, Mueller just was like, "meh, I don't feel like that's a big deal," and that seems like bull****. The only reason I could see Mueller not following through (assuming he did not, which we don't know) is he felt that within his legal powers he couldn't effectively go after #2 and #4. Again, I don't know.
 
AEA18 said:
When he's finally gone it will be really funny to watch his followers/enablers pretend to be shocked and outraged by what he pulled off right in front of their faces.

Probably will blame the democrats for not stopping him soon enough.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

shaboozy
What's your NT routine?
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
ogbobbyjohnson773
ogbobbyjohnson773
chezzer10
***MLB FEET, EQUIPMENT, AND UNIFORMS 2024***NEW THREAD
2 3
Replies
57
Views
5K
mp23
mp23
datznasty
Official Niketalk Custom Basketball Shorts Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
MakeNTGreatAgain
MakeNTGreatAgain

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom