Planet Rugby Forum

Ted. wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Santa wrote:For the 856th time exoneration is not a valid legal conclusion. All you can so is charge or not charge. Mueller acknowledged that there is no precedent for using that standard. Moreover it contradicts the presumption of innocence. Anyone who is still banging on about non-exoneration is a moron.

Perhaps, but not as big a moron as someone who lack of indictment meant exoneration...

Or, as he said. ^^^^^

shereblue wrote:

Santa wrote:Anyway I am happy to ignore all talk of exoneration and to go with the appropriate legal standard. Trump is innocent.

He hasn't been charged, you moron.

Santa wrote:

shereblue wrote:

Santa wrote:Anyway I am happy to ignore all talk of exoneration and to go with the appropriate legal standard. Trump is innocent.

He hasn't been charged, you moron.

Presumption of innocence. Look it up.

Bowens wrote:

eldanielfire wrote:I think that shows:

a) How hive minded the press are now

b) The press are activists with opinion columns not journalists

c) None of them do much journalism.

d) The press are as dishonest as Trump

It's utterly depressing the state of the press. We talk about the state of politics but the truth be told, politics only reflects the wider media.

Bingo

shereblue wrote:

Santa wrote:

shereblue wrote:

Santa wrote:Anyway I am happy to ignore all talk of exoneration and to go with the appropriate legal standard. Trump is innocent.

He hasn't been charged, you moron.

Presumption of innocence. Look it up.

If only you'd said must be preumed innocent for the time being. Utter pseud.

Bowens wrote:I would have to think about it Santa. My favored sources tend to be left-leaning like Greenwald or Blumenthal. They both called Mueller correctly.

shereblue wrote:

Santa wrote:

shereblue wrote:

Santa wrote:Anyway I am happy to ignore all talk of exoneration and to go with the appropriate legal standard. Trump is innocent.

He hasn't been charged, you moron.

Presumption of innocence. Look it up.

If only you'd said must be preumed innocent for the time being. Utter pseud.

Santa wrote:

shereblue wrote:

Santa wrote:Anyway I am happy to ignore all talk of exoneration and to go with the appropriate legal standard. Trump is innocent.

He hasn't been charged, you moron.

Presumption of innocence. Look it up.

BokJock wrote:Meanwhile ICE has started throwing US Citizens into concen....detainment centres.

Watch yourself out there Saffer13

It’s embarrassing to recall just how absurdly some people elevated Mueller, and how much faith was placed in him. Memes compared Mueller to Superman, or portrayed him as a top cop who was secretly fitting Trump for an orange jumpsuit. He appeared on votive candles and earrings. SNL sang him a Christmas carol. There was an action figure.

But faith in Mueller was born of desperation. He was an ageing Republican bureaucrat, with no track record of seriously challenging people in power. He had been an apologist for the Iraq war and mass surveillance, and a reliable servant of the DC establishment. It took a great deal of wishful thinking to envision Mueller as a caped crusader. Looking back, it’s quite obvious that people were simply seeing something that wasn’t there: “Mueller projects a pragmatism – a political strain of normcore … that has come to suggest … a veiled promise: that shady facts will find their light.” There was no such promise, veiled or otherwise.

But Democrats complaining about Russian interference have always seemed like “sore losers”. Instead of grappling with the very serious reasons why working-class people of all races are disillusioned with the Democratic party, prominent figures focus on litigating the various ways in which they were robbed of their rightful prize.

In many ways, the Democratic obsession with the Mueller investigation was symptomatic of a party that has lost touch with the real concerns of working people. People are upset because they’re drowning in debt, their rent is too damn high, they can’t afford their health insurance and they are working crappy jobs.

redderneck wrote:

EverReady wrote:I think the bored badly needs a wipe and a repositioning

Great. All we need.

A one thousand page thread on how we define 'front' and 'back'.

Perhaps we could just retitle the Irish thread?

Bowens wrote:This is a pretty good article.

It’s embarrassing to recall just how absurdly some people elevated Mueller, and how much faith was placed in him. Memes compared Mueller to Superman, or portrayed him as a top cop who was secretly fitting Trump for an orange jumpsuit. He appeared on votive candles and earrings. SNL sang him a Christmas carol. There was an action figure.

But faith in Mueller was born of desperation. He was an ageing Republican bureaucrat, with no track record of seriously challenging people in power. He had been an apologist for the Iraq war and mass surveillance, and a reliable servant of the DC establishment. It took a great deal of wishful thinking to envision Mueller as a caped crusader. Looking back, it’s quite obvious that people were simply seeing something that wasn’t there: “Mueller projects a pragmatism – a political strain of normcore … that has come to suggest … a veiled promise: that shady facts will find their light.” There was no such promise, veiled or otherwise.

But Democrats complaining about Russian interference have always seemed like “sore losers”. Instead of grappling with the very serious reasons why working-class people of all races are disillusioned with the Democratic party, prominent figures focus on litigating the various ways in which they were robbed of their rightful prize.

In many ways, the Democratic obsession with the Mueller investigation was symptomatic of a party that has lost touch with the real concerns of working people. People are upset because they’re drowning in debt, their rent is too damn high, they can’t afford their health insurance and they are working crappy jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nt-fantasy

eldanielfire wrote:

Bowens wrote:This is a pretty good article.

It’s embarrassing to recall just how absurdly some people elevated Mueller, and how much faith was placed in him. Memes compared Mueller to Superman, or portrayed him as a top cop who was secretly fitting Trump for an orange jumpsuit. He appeared on votive candles and earrings. SNL sang him a Christmas carol. There was an action figure.

But faith in Mueller was born of desperation. He was an ageing Republican bureaucrat, with no track record of seriously challenging people in power. He had been an apologist for the Iraq war and mass surveillance, and a reliable servant of the DC establishment. It took a great deal of wishful thinking to envision Mueller as a caped crusader. Looking back, it’s quite obvious that people were simply seeing something that wasn’t there: “Mueller projects a pragmatism – a political strain of normcore … that has come to suggest … a veiled promise: that shady facts will find their light.” There was no such promise, veiled or otherwise.

But Democrats complaining about Russian interference have always seemed like “sore losers”. Instead of grappling with the very serious reasons why working-class people of all races are disillusioned with the Democratic party, prominent figures focus on litigating the various ways in which they were robbed of their rightful prize.

In many ways, the Democratic obsession with the Mueller investigation was symptomatic of a party that has lost touch with the real concerns of working people. People are upset because they’re drowning in debt, their rent is too damn high, they can’t afford their health insurance and they are working crappy jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nt-fantasy

Agreed. It sums up exactly what many of us have observed. Sadly many Dems just don't seem interested in reaching out to the working class base who are leaving them. They are more interested in what a few bored rich kids feel offended by on social media.

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

Kiwias wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

The one where he said no humans would live there, knowing full well it is a largely black community. Nothing racist at all to see here, move on.

Kiwias wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

The one where he said no humans would live there, knowing full well it is a largely black community. Nothing racist at all to see here, move on.

Mick Mannock wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

Quite. Hell of a reach to describe that as racist.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

The one where he said no humans would live there, knowing full well it is a largely black community. Nothing racist at all to see here, move on.

How is it racist?

It's that projection again. Trump's now got the formula down pat. He can deploy this tactic now forever.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Mick Mannock wrote:
One knows that people have gone full-on loopy loo when a tweet about Elijah Cummings is described as racist.

The one where he described a fairly middle class area as rat infested, dangerous and filthy? I wonder why anyone would see that as racist.

The one where he said no humans would live there, knowing full well it is a largely black community. Nothing racist at all to see here, move on.

How is it racist?

It's that projection again. Trump's now got the formula down pat. He can deploy this tactic now forever.

Hong Kong wrote:

Oh and what the orange shitgibbon said was racist as he only uses the word, infested when referring to black/brown people

While Baltimore showed progress from last year, it still made the top 10 on Orkin's list of "Rattiest Cities."

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

Nope. The criticism is itself racist.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Jay Cee Gee wrote:

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

Nope. The criticism is itself racist.

Nope, the criticism when based on a lazy, repeated assumption that black areas are crime riddled shit-holes is racist. If he criticized on anything approaching a fact, maybe.....

So what you are saying is no black areas are crime riddled shit holes.

Seneca of the Night wrote:

Santa wrote:

Seneca of the Night wrote:

It's astonishing really. Rather than things that are not said being irrelevant they become the entire topic.

Yeah, and what becomes relevant is that white politicians are not allowed to criticise the performance of 'lawmakers of color'. And everyone sees that is now in the open. Finally.

It's a very clever tactic actually.

He uses a broadly or even specifically factual claim, or at least a defensible one. Overstated it. Deploys it against a target about whom certain projections can be made and when the inevitable criticism comes based on that projection it reveals a different unspoken truth that relies on the projection. That is 4D.

The problem / genius with all these things that he is doing is this: there is no agreed definition of what constitutes racism.

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

So now you agree it wasn't. You're welcome; happy to have helped.

Hong Kong wrote:

Oh and what the orange shitgibbon said was racist as he only uses the word, infested when referring to black/brown people

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:

fatcat wrote:

Kiwias wrote:What a fascinating insight into the mindset and thought processes of Trump's base. Thanks.

How was it racist?

As I said, thanks.

So now you agree it wasn't. You're welcome; happy to have helped.

Not even close to what I said but carry on defending him anyway.