Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Easy Listener

An important view into the thinking of moderates and conservatives regarding Obstruction

Recommended Posts

A new favorite channel of mine finally came out with their take on the obstruction of justice claims regarding Trump. The thing I really like about the video is not that the guy agrees with me. Obviously he does. Rather, it is that he lays out not only why he (and I) believes what he does, from a raw cultural level, but gives one a glimpse of this whole thing through the eyes of an ex-liberal who has been red pilled.

 

It quite literally violates our since of justice at a core level.

 

[video=youtube;Tb9P33nNT4E]

 

And a side note: I can't force anyone to do anything so this is just a request - if you don't have anything to offer regarding your take on the content of the video, please feel free to ignore this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do some people sit at home and watch these loud mouthed, opinionated blow hard videos?

 

Everyone has an opinion.

 

"Important to who" is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Started watching it.

At 0:40, "the innocent man accused of a terrible crime". I can see where this is going. Next thread.

 

Edit admission: Okay, watched to 2:00. Such BS.:facepalm:

Edited by Hoot Owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole basis of this person's rant is a giant strawman. "Pretend you've been framed for a crime you didn't commit."

 

 

And once again, who is this person, what are their credentials, WHY should I care what HIS opinion about anything is? Apparently I should care only because his opinion matches yours?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Since

 

I saw that but decided to leave it so that the post is not shown to be edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I saw that but decided to leave it so that the post is not shown to be edited.

 

Y?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
The whole basis of this person's rant is a giant strawman. "Pretend you've been framed for a crime you didn't commit."

 

 

And once again, who is this person, what are their credentials, WHY should I care what HIS opinion about anything is? Apparently I should care only because his opinion matches yours?

 

I said "...he lays out not only why he (and I) believes what he does, from a raw cultural level..."

 

That is, you now know how many of us that supported Trump in this thing felt about it, and how we felt about the obstruction claims. You are getting a real view at a fairly detailed level of what many of us saw in that whole thing.

 

The person does not need credentials. His whole rant is opinion. And an opinion shared by many who don't share the views of the left.

 

You see, many of us see this as exactly what he implies, that trump was framed for a crime he didn't commit. And the rest shakes out from there.

 

And there is LOTS of evidence supporting that viewpoint. This is what Barr is now investigating.

 

FBI lied: Contrary to testimony, they knew the Steele dossier was fake BEFORE using it to get FISA warrants

 

Edit: Change "most" to "many", though I believe it is "most".

Edited by Easy Listener

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Important to who?

 

Those who would sincerely want to understand why all these crazy conservatives were coming to Trump's defense on the Mueller report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Y?

 

Sometimes things are better left as is, even with minor flaws. That's why some clubs don't like studio recordings of bands for demo, but prefer recordings of live performances. They like to see how they do when they can't go back and edit the errors. You get the real deal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I said "...he lays out not only why he (and I) believes what he does, from a raw cultural level..."

 

That is, you now know how most of us that supported Trump in this thing felt about it, and how we felt about the obstruction claims. You are getting a real view at a fairly detailed level of what many of us saw in that whole thing.

 

The person does not need credentials. His whole rant is opinion. And an opinion shared by many who don't share the views of the left.

 

You see, many of us see this as exactly what he implies, that trump was framed for a crime he didn't commit. And the rest shakes out from there.

 

And there is LOTS of evidence supporting that viewpoint. This is what Barr is now investigating.

 

FBI lied: Contrary to testimony, they knew the Steele dossier was fake BEFORE using it to get FISA warrants

 

another opinion piece, that sources yet another opinion piece, is not 'evidence'. And you're conveniently ignoring the facts that the dossier was not the sole reason the warrants were granted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Started watching it.

At 0:40, "the innocent man accused of a terrible crime". I can see where this is going. Next thread.

 

Edit admission: Okay, watched to 2:00. Such BS.:facepalm:

 

You can lead a horse to water.

 

He was trying to make a point that you would not allow yourself to be exposed to. Don't be afraid of the other side.

 

Thing is, we now know that Trump was innocent, and the crime was terrible. The analogy was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Why?

 

Possibly because the title is misleading?

 

a more accurate title would be " one person's view of blah blah blah that aligns with mine". The title as it stands claims to speak for a rather large group of people, as if the opinions thereof are monolithic. They aren't - there's a huge diversity of opinion within "moderates and conservatives", and this is just one of them. It certainly doesn't represent my take on things in the least, and I'm of the group you and the guy in the video purport to represent.

Edited by Red Ant
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do some people sit at home and watch these loud mouthed, opinionated blow hard videos?

 

Everyone has an opinion.

 

"Important to who" is right.

 

He doesn't seem that loud. ;)

 

But that was argumentum ad-hominem. What do you think of the points he's making and why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Those who would sincerely want to understand why all these crazy conservatives were coming to Trump's defense on the Mueller report.

 

I already understand. It doesn't matter if trump is a traitor and criminal. He's your traitor and criminal. That's all that really matters. Imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

He doesn't seem that loud. ;)

 

But that was argumentum ad-hominem. What do you think of the points he's making and why?

 

I think people who sit in front of a camera and blah blah their opinion and post it on YouTube have no desire to discuss, debate or defend their points. They just wish to pontificate.

 

Perhaps he could come here and present his views himself if he wishes to discuss them with members of this forum?

 

the flaw with you posting these videos in the manner you do is that by asking us to discuss the points, you are forcing us to consider his mindset and motivations which we cannot know because he isn’t here to tell us. And then when someone tries to surmise them, you cry “ad hominem”.

 

This is why it would be so much better for you to simply post your own views rather than someone else’s and state “I agree”.

Edited by Vito Corleone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I saw that but decided to leave it so that the post is not shown to be edited.

 

I see, you were going for that raw, live in concert feel to your post.

I like it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I already understand. It doesn't matter if trump is a traitor and criminal. He's your traitor and criminal. That's all that really matters. Imo

 

That post reveals more than you may want it to reveal. Just sayin'. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That post reveals more than you may want it to reveal. Just sayin'. ;)

 

Look who's talking. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can lead a horse to water.

 

He was trying to make a point that you would not allow yourself to be exposed to. Don't be afraid of the other side.

 

Thing is, we now know that Trump was innocent, and the crime was terrible. The analogy was great.

Yeah, Trump is innocent in the way the OJ is innocent. He got off because Mueller didn't have a link between working with Kalimnik and Russian campaign meddling. When you think about it, how could he make that link? Pretty hard to interview Russians in the Kremlin.

 

Dirty president, in more ways than one.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my issue with the whole Trump/Russia thing.

 

If Obama had setup meetings with Russians prior to becoming POTUS, Republican heads would have exploded.

If Obama's people had tried to setup a back-channel hotline with Russia prior to being sworn in, Republicans would have screamed bloody murder.

If Obama had publicly invited the Russians to hack McCain or Romney's email, Republicans would have tarred and feathered him.

If Obama had a long history of doing business and getting loans from Russian oligarchs, Republicans would want it thoroughly investigated.

If Obama hadn't released his taxes while running for President because they showed a lot of income tied to Russia, Republicans would be outraged.

If several of Obama's staff lied about meetings with Russian officials, it would be headline news on Fox every night.

If Obama had met privately with Vladimir Putin with only his translator, Republicans would swear he was selling our country to the Reds.

If, after all of our Intelligence organizations had determined that Russia tried heavily to influence our election, Obama denied the fact, Republicans would be starting the impeachment process.

 

But it's fine when their guy does all of this.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, Trump is innocent in the way the OJ is innocent. He got off because Mueller didn't have a link between working with Kalimnik and Russian campaign meddling. When you think about it, how could he make that link? Pretty hard to interview Russians in the Kremlin.

 

Dirty president, in more ways than one.

 

 

Your post communicates a great deal about how you have intellectually processed this information. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my issue with the whole Trump/Russia thing.

 

If Obama had setup meetings with Russians prior to becoming POTUS, Republican heads would have exploded.

If Obama's people had tried to setup a back-channel hotline with Russia prior to being sworn in, Republicans would have screamed bloody murder.

If Obama had publicly invited the Russians to hack McCain or Romney's email, Republicans would have tarred and feathered him.

If Obama had a long history of doing business and getting loans from Russian oligarchs, Republicans would want it thoroughly investigated.

If Obama hadn't released his taxes while running for President because they showed a lot of income tied to Russia, Republicans would be outraged.

If several of Obama's staff lied about meetings with Russian officials, it would be headline news on Fox every night.

If Obama had met privately with Vladimir Putin with only his translator, Republicans would swear he was selling our country to the Reds.

If, after all of our Intelligence organizations had determined that Russia tried heavily to influence our election, Obama denied the fact, Republicans would be starting the impeachment process.

 

But it's fine when their guy does all of this.

That's good.

I think we could double or triple the if's though if we worked on it for a while.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your post communicates a great deal about how you have intellectually processed this information. Thank you.

Okay.

I take that with a smile, kind of a chuckle, knowing you...and me. Neither of us actually being important or anything.:rolleyes:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's my issue with the whole Trump/Russia thing.

 

If Obama had setup meetings with Russians prior to becoming POTUS, Republican heads would have exploded.

If Obama's people had tried to setup a back-channel hotline with Russia prior to being sworn in, Republicans would have screamed bloody murder.

If Obama had publicly invited the Russians to hack McCain or Romney's email, Republicans would have tarred and feathered him.

If Obama had a long history of doing business and getting loans from Russian oligarchs, Republicans would want it thoroughly investigated.

If Obama hadn't released his taxes while running for President because they showed a lot of income tied to Russia, Republicans would be outraged.

If several of Obama's staff lied about meetings with Russian officials, it would be headline news on Fox every night.

If Obama had met privately with Vladimir Putin with only his translator, Republicans would swear he was selling our country to the Reds.

If, after all of our Intelligence organizations had determined that Russia tried heavily to influence our election, Obama denied the fact, Republicans would be starting the impeachment process.

 

But it's fine when their guy does all of this.

 

Actually, Republicans were really going nuts about Obama's school transcripts being released. So there is that parallel, but, IMO, the rest of your points are biased caricatures of what actually happened.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's good.

I think we could double or triple the if's though if we worked on it for a while.

 

 

Easily. I didn't mention the plans for a Trump tower in Moscow, or Miss Universe, or Eric Prince, or Rex Tillerson.

Trump isn't orange, he's red.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when conservative heads exploded because a shady campaign donor of Obama’s bought an empty lot next to Obama’s house and sold a portion of it to Obama?

 

seems so quaint now, doesn’t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, Republicans were really going nuts about Obama's school transcripts being released. So there is that parallel, but, IMO, the rest of your points are biased caricatures of what actually happened.

 

 

 

That isn't a parallel at all, one has nothing to do with the other, but nice job dancing around the issues.

 

And your second point is inaccurate as well.

 

Again, it's not hard, substitute Obama for Trump in all of those situations and let us know how you would really feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, Trump is innocent in the way the OJ is innocent. He got off because Mueller didn't have a link between working with Kalimnik and Russian campaign meddling. When you think about it, how could he make that link? Pretty hard to interview Russians in the Kremlin.

 

Dirty president, in more ways than one.

 

 

He got off because there was no evidence. On a side note, sometimes people like to say that Mueller didn't exonerate him. That is what a Judge or jury does. A prosecutor prosecutes, if there is enough evidence to bring a case. If there isn't they choose to not prosecute. Nobody ever said a prosecutor exonerated the accused. The best you can hope for is a prosecutor choosing to not prosecute.

 

Which is what Mueller did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

He got off because there was no evidence. On a side note, sometimes people like to say that Mueller didn't exonerate him. That is what a Judge or jury does. A prosecutor prosecutes, if there is enough evidence to bring a case. If there isn't they choose to not prosecute. Nobody ever said a prosecutor exonerated the accused. The best you can hope for is a prosecutor choosing to not prosecute.

 

Which is what Mueller did.

 

Once again, you’re completely wrong.

 

Mueller stated that, from the outset, he was not going to make accusations of crimes being committed or recommend indictment, no matter what the evidence presented showed.

 

He didn’t “choose” not to prosecute. He believed it wasn’t an option afforded to him by DOJ rules.

 

That you repeatedly continue to dishonestly misrepresent this point in spite of it having been made clear to you numerous times is quite telling.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, Trump is innocent in the way the OJ is innocent. He got off because Mueller didn't have a link between working with Kalimnik and Russian campaign meddling. When you think about it, how could he make that link? Pretty hard to interview Russians in the Kremlin.

 

Dirty president, in more ways than one.

 

 

Also because the Trump campaign and Associates were dealing with cutouts instead of direct Representatives.

 

The Russian Lady lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting was not an elected official.

 

same thing with the Red Sparrow and the NRA, no coordination or conspiracy with elected Russian officials involved.

 

and Paul manafort did not give polling data to officials of the Russian government, but rather to a Russian industrialist oligarch reputed to have ties with Russian intelligence.

 

always there is the plausible deniability of operating through an intermediary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, Republicans were really going nuts about Obama's school transcripts being released. So there is that parallel, but, IMO, the rest of your points are biased caricatures of what actually happened.

 

 

No they're not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also because the Trump campaign and Associates were dealing with cutouts instead of direct Representatives.

 

The Russian Lady lawyer at the Trump Tower meeting was not an elected official.

 

same thing with the Red Sparrow and the NRA, no coordination or conspiracy with elected Russian officials involved.

 

and Paul manafort did not give polling data to officials of the Russian government, but rather to a Russian industrialist oligarch reputed to have ties with Russian intelligence.

 

always there is the plausible deniability of operating through an intermediary.

And if the intermediary doesn't do the trick there is always 'the fixer'.

 

Trump is crime 101, light.

But like I've said before, if Trump wasn't operating under this rule of law he'd be operating much dirtier than he has been. He's the Putin type of person. I'm guessing that's a big part of his attraction to Vlad. I imagine Trump lusts for the power that Putin has.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remember when conservative heads exploded because a shady campaign donor of Obama’s bought an empty lot next to Obama’s house and sold a portion of it to Obama?

 

seems so quaint now, doesn’t it?

BIG double standards on display.

It works both ways, of course, but the current go-round dwarfs the other ones.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if the intermediary doesn't do the trick there is always 'the fixer'.

 

Trump is crime 101, light.

But like I've said before, if Trump wasn't operating under this rule of law he'd be operating much dirtier than he has been. He's the Putin type of person. I'm guessing that's a big part of his attraction to Vlad. I imagine Trump lusts for the power that Putin has.

 

 

With the loss of Cohen, Donald required someone to fulfill the role of fixer.

 

via the mechanism of his unsolicited audition memo, Barr was immediately accepted as the new fixer for President Sham Wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread really delivers. The thread is about a window into the perspective of those supporting Trump regarding the Mueller report, but the content of the thread turns out to be a window into the perspective of those who believe he is the guilty party.

 

This is awesome! And these posts are fun, kinda like watching a Tucker Carlson interview of a leftist is fun. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the loss of Cohen, Donald required someone to fulfill the role of fixer.

 

via the mechanism of his unsolicited audition memo, Barr was immediately accepted as the new fixer for President Sham Wow.

Yep. Sure looks that way. That's why Trump was moaning about Sessions' not protecting him. "Where's my Roy Cohn" and all that crap. Anyone who laments not having a Roy Cohn by their side, they're a loser.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
This thread really delivers. The thread is about a window into the perspective of those supporting Trump regarding the Mueller report, but the content of the thread turns out to be a window into the perspective of those who believe he is the guilty party.

 

This is awesome! And these posts are fun, kinda like watching a Tucker Carlson interview of a leftist is fun. :D

Your title says it's about obstruction of justice. Numerous legal opinions I've heard about that leave no doubt that Trump would be charged if he were not a sitting president.

 

So, the window that you speak of is not worth looking through, IMO. That's why your thread moved off into other matters.

 

Edited by Hoot Owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep. Sure looks that way. That's why Trump was moaning about Sessions' not protecting him. "Where's my Roy Cohn" and all that crap. Anyone who laments not having a Roy Cohn by their side, they're a loser.

 

 

Not to mention anyone that ever once actually DID have Roy Cohn by their side. Biggest loser of all. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Your title says it's about obstruction of justice. Numerous legal opinions I've heard about that leave no doubt that Trump would be charged if he were not a sitting president.

 

So, the window that you speak of is not worth looking through, IMO. That's why your thread moved off into other matters.

 

And although the thread title asks us to looking into the mindset of the guy in the video and others who agree with him, don't dare comment on their mindset, as that would be an ad hominem attack. :lol:

Edited by Vito Corleone
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your title says it's about obstruction of justice. Numerous legal opinions I've heard about that leave no doubt that Trump would be charged if he were not a sitting president.

 

So, the window that you speak of is not worth looking through, IMO. That's why your thread moved off into other matters.

 

Well, make of it what you will. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not to mention anyone that ever once actually DID have Roy Cohn by their side. Biggest loser of all. :)

It would take strong innate moral character to distance yourself from a mentor of Roy Cohn's stature in New York. Trump did the opposite. He does the opposite, because they are the same type of morally deficient person - Putin and Duterte come to mind as well. These guys are all bottom-of-the-barrel type characters - users, abusers, villains, thieves... I could go on.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread really delivers. The thread is about a window into the perspective of those supporting Trump regarding the Mueller report, but the content of the thread turns out to be a window into the perspective of those who believe he is the guilty party.

 

This is awesome! And these posts are fun, kinda like watching a Tucker Carlson interview of a leftist is fun. :D

 

This thread is about you being unable to articulate your feelings without help from Youtube, about how you again misrepresent the Mueller report, and how you're not willing to admit that you would have major concerns if a Democrat showed the same pattern of behavior regarding Russia.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would take strong innate moral character to distance yourself from a mentor of Roy Cohn's stature in New York. Trump did the opposite. He does the opposite, because they are the same type of morally deficient person - Putin and Duterte come to mind as well. These guys are all bottom-of-the-barrel type characters - users, abusers, villains, thieves... I could go on.

 

 

Yep. I've often opined that the only thing that separates Trump from actually being a Putin or a Duterte is that our American system prevents it. I've noted before the degree to which Trump and Kim are really the same person at their core. Only difference is Trump grew up the rich kid of a NYC real estate baron while Kim grew up the rich kid of a despot communist leader. Switch them at birth and I doubt we'd see either acting any differently today.

 

Which isn't to say I think Trump is actively seeking to be a Putin or a Duterte or a Kim. I don't agree with those who believe Trump has nefarious goals to tear down our system so he can be some sort of despot ruler. I just think it's in his nature to push these boundaries as far as he can.

 

And it's up to the rest of us to make sure the system remains strong so that he, and whoever with similar personality traits who may follow him in the future, remain unable to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Yep. I've often opined that the only thing that separates Trump from actually being a Putin or a Duterte is that our American system prevents it. I've noted before the degree to which Trump and Kim are really the same person at their core. Only difference is Trump grew up the rich kid of a NYC real estate baron while Kim grew up the rich kid of a despot communist leader. Switch them at birth and I doubt we'd see either acting any differently today.

 

Which isn't to say I think Trump is actively seeking to be a Putin or a Duterte or a Kim. I don't agree with those who believe Trump has nefarious goals to tear down our system so he can be some sort of despot ruler. I just think it's in his nature to push these boundaries as far as he can.

 

And it's up to the rest of us to make sure the system remains strong so that he, and whoever with similar personality traits who may follow him in the future, remain unable to do so.

I never thought about it but your Trump/Kim scenario makes so much sense. I guess we could say the same for any of these autocrats and Trump. They are of the same mold. They have the similar moral and ethical deficiencies. Would it be wrong to call them psychopaths? They certainly fit the description of narcissistic personality disorder. Is that a recognized trait of the psychopath?

 

I wouldn't know the answer to those questions but I do know he's a creep.:D

 

Edited by Hoot Owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...