Out of context

Author: Mopac

Posts

Total: 74
#31
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What do you mean? I feel like it's an apt point.

1. Trump is the president, with intelligence and experts behind him. Hence his words are taken seriously
2. Because they are taken seriously, they are invariably disseminated throughout the country as a source of information

Clearly, Trumps disseminated statements aren't all that different to the impact of mainstream media news stories

So the question remains, are media-like twistings of words and removals of context topical? Because I think it's a rather similar situation. The only difference is where the twistings and removals occur. ie primary vs secondary sources of information


#32
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
by that logic anyone can be included especially anyone in politics, doesn't fit what everyone considers media, except you that is.

the media interviews people and writes stores about people not just Trump, does Trump do that as well?

if he wanted examples of people who twist stories he probably would have used the word........ oh I dunno people?  and not media?

get treatment for your tds, it's not too late

#33
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What do you mean? I feel like it's an apt point.

1. Trump is the president, with intelligence and experts behind him. Hence his words are taken seriously
2. Because they are taken seriously, they are invariably disseminated throughout the country as a source of information

Clearly, Trumps disseminated statements aren't all that different to the impact of mainstream media news stories

So the question remains, are media-like twistings of words and removals of context topical? Because I think it's a rather similar situation. The only difference is where the twistings and removals occur. ie primary vs secondary sources of information
#34
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Only the left takes Trump's rhetoric seriously.

Who takes the left seriously?
#35
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder


Well just Barr's summary suffices as well, despite it having its own problems


Specifically last sentence of 1st paragraph page 3,

"The special counsel states that "while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.""
-William Barr, Robert Mueller

Next Sentence at the beginning of paragraph 2 page 3,

"The Special Council's decision to describe the facts of his obstruction investigation without reaching any legal conclusions leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime. "
-William Barr

President Trump's twitter account is not what I consider news media and according to the sufficient summary, the matter is not decided by Mr. Mueller, but rather left up to Attorney General William Barr, who came to a conclusion with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.  I'm left a bit puzzled by what, if anything, you are referring to. 


#36
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Snoopy
It's so funny seeing the reaction from people at a Trump rally. When Trump makes ridiculous political rhetoric as an obvious joke, the crowd laughs because everyone at that rally knows that political rhetoric is bullshit and should never be taken seriously. When Trump talks about things he has DONE...that is when the crowd stops laughing and starts cheering.

The left still has not seemingly figured this out at all because of the way they continue to believe that Trump's rhetoric is the reason why he got elected and that Trump's rhetoric alone will get him re-elected. At a Democratic rally, the crowd never laughs, but cheers at political rhetoric... and the crowd does not even expect to hear from a politician what anyone has done for them. What a sad low bar for them.

#37
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Snoopy
Right, so I didn't say that Trump's twitter account was news media, but my position is that the effects of his public statements are comparable to news sources in terms of the dissemination of certain topics and their corresponding impacts on the American population.

What I said has nothing to do with the ultimate conclusions made by Barr, only that what Trump said in that tweet is a distortion of what Barr's report has stated, which I thought was an example of "twisting words".

Finally, my understanding of the whole situation is that Mueller's intention was to leave any further proceedings to congress.

#38
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
Right, so I didn't say that Trump's twitter account was news media, but my position is that the effects of his public statements are comparable to news sources in terms of the dissemination of certain topics and their corresponding impacts on the American population.\
Its a personal twitter account.  It's Donald Trump's personal twitter account.   It is a politician named Donald Trump's personal twitter account.  The meme's are way more entertaining than the news, no comparison.

What I said has nothing to do with the ultimate conclusions made by Barr, only that what Trump said in that tweet is a distortion of what Barr's report has stated, which I thought was an example of "twisting words".
Why did you quote Robert Mueller's non-conclusion rather than William Barr and Rod Rosenstein's conclusion then?  You can't seriously think Donald Trump is taking Robert Mueller's words out of context.

Finally, my understanding of the whole situation is that Mueller's intention was to leave any further proceedings to congress.

Why are you quoting Donald Trump's  twitter account rather than the summary Attorney General William Barr sent to congress?  Did you read the summary?

Topic's author
#39
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Greyparrot
President Trump may possibly be the greatest shit talker to ever take office.


When he first started running, I thought, "This guy needs to get elected, because he will revitalize the satire industry."


I was wrong though. He is way funnier than the people who make fun of him. The people who make fun of him aren't even funny.



#40
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Mopac
I agree.
#41
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Snoopy
Its a personal twitter account.  It's Donald Trump's personal twitter account.   It is a politician named Donald Trump's personal twitter account.  The meme's are way more entertaining than the news.
And it's great you feel that way. However from my perspective, he is the president and it is implied that what he says is rooted in data that isn't available to the general public. For example, if he were to say that there were mass incidents of election fraud, one might reasonably assume that this statement is drawn of private data from American intelligence agencies and is to be taken seriously. Accordingly, other people, especially those coming from low-information perspectives may take these views seriously. 

Why did you quote Robert Mueller's non-conclusion rather than William Barr and Rod Rosenstein's conclusion then?
Two reasons

1. Because Barr and Rosenstein's conclusions, while based upon the report are not part of the report itself. If your claim is that the report has exonerated you, clearly the report is relevant and not Barr's independent conclusion.

2. Because Barr's conclusion doesn't really bear much relevance in the context of exoneration. No further charges is not equivalent to complete and total exoneration which I think is an important distinction.

Why are you quoting Donald Trump's  twitter account rather than the summary Attorney General William Barr sent to congress?  Did you read the summary?
You could make a case that Barr's summary was a misrepresentation of the report certainly. But it doesn't really have the reach of the sitting president. My assumption is that most people wait for the summaries to be broadcasted on news networkers, or in my case, Trump's twitter account which is a better fit topically
#42
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Meanwhile, people on the right know the intelligence agency is to be never trusted blindly. So when someone says all 17 intelligence agencies agree on anything, they know somebody is bullshitting.

People got fired recently in the FBI for spreading false information. Why would you believe the government agencies blindly? Why would you believe anyone in government blindly?
#43
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
Its a personal twitter account.  It's Donald Trump's personal twitter account.   It is a politician named Donald Trump's personal twitter account.  The meme's are way more entertaining than the news.
And it's great you feel that way. However from my perspective, he is the president and it is implied that what he says is rooted in data that isn't available to the general public. For example, if he were to say that there were mass incidents of election fraud, one might reasonably assume that this statement is drawn of private data from American intelligence agencies and is to be taken seriously. Accordingly, other people, especially those coming from low-information perspectives may take these views seriously. 

Why did you quote Robert Mueller's non-conclusion rather than William Barr and Rod Rosenstein's conclusion then?
Two reasons

1. Because Barr and Rosenstein's conclusions, while based upon the report are not part of the report itself. If your claim is that the report has exonerated you, clearly the report is relevant and not Barr's independent conclusion.
I missed something.  Where was that claimed?

2. Because Barr's conclusion doesn't really bear much relevance in the context of exoneration. No further charges is not equivalent to complete and total exoneration which I think is an important distinction.
Okay, so that begs another question.  What charges of the Russia investigation are you implying have yet to be addressed? Or do you mean to say that there is simply not sufficient evidence of him committing a crime, and Trump was never proven innocent?

Why are you quoting Donald Trump's  twitter account rather than the summary Attorney General William Barr sent to congress?  Did you read the summary?
You could make a case that Barr's summary was a misrepresentation of the report certainly. But it doesn't really have the reach of the sitting president. My assumption is that most people wait for the summaries to be broadcasted on news networkers, or in my case, Trump's twitter account which is a better fit topically



#44
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Who said anything about following anything blindly? Personally I think a certain level of skepticism is probably healthy in most cases.

However it's just a fact that the US government agencies are more credible than not. You mentioned that people were recently fired from the FBI for telling falsehoods. This tells me that there is a strong ethic in the FBI for maintaining truth. Apart from that, it's an anecdote. So in reality, it doesn't tell me anything at all
#45
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
#46
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Snoopy
I missed something.  Where was that claimed?
Trump's tweet is clearly a reference to the Barr summary, or do you disagree?

Okay, so that begs another question.  What charges of the Russia investigation are you implying have yet to be addressed? Or do you mean to say that there is simply not sufficient evidence of him committing a crime, and Trump was never proven innocent?
So there are several take away points from legal experts

1. Several actions Trump took as described in Mueller's report are obstruction
2. Current DOJ policy states that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is probably why Mueller did not bring forth charges directly
3. If Trump had not been president and these actions had occurred, he would've probably been indicted
#47
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder

An amazingly informative read from a radical far-left rag explaining how the Congress has shirked its duty since watergate to a special prosecutor that does not have the constitutional authority to do anything to a sitting president. Congress has historically sought to abdicate responsibilities at every opportunity when they could get away with it, from the formation of entrenched unaccountable federal agencies to the outright transfer of Congressional powers to the executive and judicial branches, most notably in recent history, the congressional war power responsibility.

It's ultimately the Congress's job to do the hard investigation work that leads to impeachment, not the department of justice.

Impeachment must be the only solution to Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order. The Constitution did not envision that the criminal-justice system would address abuses of presidential power. Since Watergate, we have embarked on a 40-year experiment in using the criminal law to resolve separation-of-powers disputes. If Ken Starr’s sprawling Whitewater probe had not already demonstrated it, the Mueller report should prove that the experiment has failed. The Framers vested in the president the authority to oversee all federal law enforcement. As Alexander Hamilton observed in “Federalist No. 70,” “good government” requires “energy in the executive,” and a vigorous president is “essential to the protection of the community from foreign attacks” and “the steady administration of the laws.” Because of this original design, a president can order the end of any investigation, even one into his own White House.

The Framers did not want legislators to avoid the responsibility of curbing presidential abuse of power by hiding behind prosecutors or the courts. Impeachment may place that awesome duty in a body subject to political pressures and sensitive to other national demands. Nevertheless, the Constitution makes Congress alone accountable for removing a president who abuses his office. Ultimately, both Attorney General Barr and Special Counsel Mueller have done the nation a service not just by clearing the president of collusion, but by returning the question of obstruction to Congress, where it belongs.
#48
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
I missed something.  Where was that claimed?
Trump's tweet is clearly a reference to the Barr summary, or do you disagree?
Yeah, that's what I figure.


Okay, so that begs another question.  What charges of the Russia investigation are you implying have yet to be addressed? Or do you mean to say that there is simply not sufficient evidence of him committing a crime, and Trump was never proven innocent?
So there are several take away points from legal experts

1. Several actions Trump took as described in Mueller's report are obstruction
2. Current DOJ policy states that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is probably why Mueller did not bring forth charges directly
3. If Trump had not been president and these actions had occurred, he would've probably been indicted

I'm still curious if I'm the only person who has read into the summary.  Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly

Second Paragraph, Page 3

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Council's investigation is not sufficient to establish that the President Committed an obstruction -of-justice offense.  Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."

#49
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Did you have a point?
#50
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
yep.
#51
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Snoopy
Yeah, that's what I figure.
Is this a agreement or a disagreement?

Second Paragraph, Page 3

"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Council's investigation is not sufficient establish that the President Committed an obstruction -of-justice offense.  Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
Did you have a point here?

#52
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Ok.
#53
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
yep.
Topic's author
#54
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
I don't think President Trump did anything wrong.


It looks to me like democrats just want to undermine his presidency and remove him from office. The justification for doing so is just kind of an afterthought.

This obsession with destroying Trump has led to us having how many 24/7 Trump news networks now? 




#55
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Mopac
Did your read Mueller's report?
#56
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
Trump's tweet is clearly a reference to the Barr summary, or do you disagree?
Yeah, that's what I figure.
Is this a agreement or a disagreement?

Its in agreement.  What country are you from?

Second Paragraph, Page 3

1. Several actions Trump took as described in Mueller's report are obstruction
2. Current DOJ policy states that a sitting president cannot be indicted, which is probably why Mueller did not bring forth charges directly
3. If Trump had not been president and these actions had occurred, he would've probably been indicted


"After reviewing the Special Counsel's final report on these issues; consulting with Department officials, including the Office of Legal Counsel; and applying the principles of federal prosecution that guide our charging decisions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and I have concluded that the evidence developed during the Special Council's investigation is not sufficient establish that the President Committed an obstruction -of-justice offense.  Our determination was made without regard to, and is not based on, the constitutional considerations that surround the indictment and criminal prosecution of a sitting president."
Did you have a point here?
I'll make one for you.  President Trump may have read past the quote you supplied from the Mueller report and gotten to this part, just one paragraph down.  It appears to state the determination was made regardless of presidential protections from indictment, and criminal prosecution.


#57
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Snoopy
Its in agreement.  What country are you from?
Hmm? NZ

President Trump read this.  It appears to state the conclusion is made regardless of his legal protections from indictment, and criminal prosecution.
Well we certainly can't know what Trump has or hasn't read. And that might very well be true for Barr's conclusion.
#58
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@dustryder
That has been edited. 


#59
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
well we certainly can't know what Trump has or hasn't read.
Nonsense, we've already established otherwise that Donald Trump was clearly referencing the summary put forth to congress by the Attorney General.

#60
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@Snoopy
I'll make one for you.  President Trump may have read past the quote you supplied from the Mueller report and gotten to this part, just one paragraph down.  It appears to state the determination was made regardless of presidential protections from indictment, and criminal prosecution.
Still missing the point

Nonsense, we've already established otherwise that Donald Trump was clearly referencing the summary put forth to congress by the Attorney General.
Which does not necessitate him reading the summary