The War Room Bet Thread v2

[Limbo Pete]

@waiguoren

Up the stakes imo

Trump soils himself publicly sometime during his presidency: Homer yes, Waiguoren no.

Loser gets "tribalism is a failed predictive model" tattooed across their chest

 

[HomerThompson]

Up the stakes imo

Trump soils himself publicly sometime during his presidency: Homer yes, Waiguoren no.

Loser gets "tribalism is a failed predictive model" tattooed across their chest

 

[Limbo Pete]

DoIt.gif

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you actually think Trump "colluded" with Russia? As the intrepid @kpt018 pointed out, that word has no meaning in this context.

That's not what he pointed out. There were a lot of crimes committed in the process of the collusion, but "collusion" wasn't the name of them. And I don't see how anyone denies that the campaign colluded with Russia.

Trump "distributed" DNC e-mails? What does that mean?

Russia distributed them though one of its propaganda arms. Timed to be of maximal help to Trump (right after the Access Hollywood tapes) and presented in a misleading way.

The "top NS adviser" held that position for 24 days (average tenure: 950 days) and seems to have been fired for lying to the Vice President about his contacts with Russia.

Now you're playing lawyer for the administration. The fact that Trump's people have such a short tenure because of their corruption is hardly a defense. He was also Trump's top adviser on NS during the campaign (and someone floated as a VP possibility). And very obviously Flynn was not fired for lying to the VP. Assuming he did lie to Pence, that was known well before he was fired. It was when the story became public that Trump had no choice but to push him out. None of this is relevant to the main point. If this had been a Democratic president, it would be over.

You have no evidence that Trump fired Comey for refusing to stop the investigation.

Huh? There's lots of evidence for that, including (but not limited to) the fact that Trump said that that's why he fired him in a televised interview. Again, that would be fatal to a Democratic president. Shit, just publicly calling for political opponents to be arrested would be enough to sink a Democratic president. Trump regularly does stuff that would be career enders for Democrats.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That's not what he pointed out. There were a lot of crimes committed in the process of the collusion, but "collusion" wasn't the name of them. And I don't see how anyone denies that the campaign colluded with Russia.



Russia distributed them though one of its propaganda arms. Timed to be of maximal help to Trump (right after the Access Hollywood tapes) and presented in a misleading way.



Now you're playing lawyer for the administration. The fact that Trump's people have such a short tenure because of their corruption is hardly a defense. He was also Trump's top adviser on NS during the campaign (and someone floated as a VP possibility). And very obviously Flynn was not fired for lying to the VP. Assuming he did lie to Pence, that was known well before he was fired. It was when the story became public that Trump had no choice but to push him out. None of this is relevant to the main point. If this had been a Democratic president, it would be over.



Huh? There's lots of evidence for that, including (but not limited to) the fact that Trump said that that's why he fired him in a televised interview. Again, that would be fatal to a Democratic president. Shit, just publicly calling for political opponents to be arrested would be enough to sink a Democratic president. Trump regularly does stuff that would be career enders for Democrats.

This is what politics looks like when a party realizes that refusing to hold their politicians accountable helps put and keep them in power.

 

[Rational Poster]

Imagine how much more awesome this would have been if Flynn was the VP.

 

[Jack V Savage]

@waiguoren

See this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/18-crucial-days-what-did-president-know-when-did-he-n828261

Looks like Mueller is at least looking into whether Trump instructed Flynn to lie to the FBI about contacts with Russia, and if he did, that would explain a lot of otherwise odd facts about Flynn's actions (could also be explained by Flynn not being mentally stable, of course). As someone who claims to be a libertarian, would you have any problem with the president instructing his people to lie to law enforcement?

 

[HomerThompson]

@waiguoren

See this:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/18-crucial-days-what-did-president-know-when-did-he-n828261

Looks like Mueller is at least looking into whether Trump instructed Flynn to lie to the FBI about contacts with Russia, and if he did, that would explain a lot of otherwise odd facts about Flynn's actions (could also be explained by Flynn not being mentally stable, of course). As someone who claims to be a libertarian, would you have any problem with the president instructing his people to lie to law enforcement?

You can't lie to law enforcement, if there's no government.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You can't lie to law enforcement, if there's no government.

Good point.

You know, I'm legitimately disappointed with how many right-wing libertarians have handled Trump. Everyone knows right-wing Evangelicals are almost all hypocrites so their support is no issue, but I had thought these guys were true believers in their ideology.

 

[HomerThompson]

Good point.

You know, I'm legitimately disappointed with how many right-wing libertarians have handled Trump. Everyone knows right-wing Evangelicals are almost all hypocrites so their support is no issue, but I had thought these guys were true believers in their ideology.

I think they're basically edge lords, who want to be anti-establishment, but can't even get that right.

 

[waiguoren]

That's not what he pointed out. There were a lot of crimes committed in the process of the collusion, but "collusion" wasn't the name of them. And I don't see how anyone denies that the campaign colluded with Russia.

You moved the goalposts. My claim is that there is no evidence that President Trump himself "colluded" with Russia. You changed "Trump" to "the campaign", which is a weasel tactic as we both know political campaigns are sprawling machines comprising thousands of individuals.

At least you acknowledge that "collusion" is not a legal term in this context. There is no crime that Trump could be indicted for called "collusion". You have refused my offers to bet on Trump being indicted for any such crimes, probably because you realize that Dershowitz is correct.

Under our system of government, the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice or any other crime simply for exercising his constitutional authority to fire the FBI Director or Robert Mueller, or for telling someone to shut down an investigation into his campaign. This is unfortunate, and our system should be changed, but that's the status quo.

Now you're playing lawyer for the administration. The fact that Trump's people have such a short tenure because of their corruption is hardly a defense.

Your thinking on this question appears highly muddled, undoubtedly owing to tribalism.

Tribalists lump their enemies and all their enemies' associates together into one evil group. You are claiming that the presence of Michael Flynn as a top member of Trump's cabinet is evidence that the entire administration and/or Trump himself is "colluding" with Russia. To any rational person, this is improper.

In this case, of course it is reasonable to point out that Trump was unwilling to tolerate even the appearance of an inappropriate connection to Russia. Flynn was fired swiftly.

He was also Trump's top adviser on NS during the campaign (and someone floated as a VP possibility). And very obviously Flynn was not fired for lying to the VP. Assuming he did lie to Pence, that was known well before he was fired.

This shows either ignorance or dishonesty on your part. I do hope it is the former.

Yates spoke to McGahn about Flynn from January 24 to January 27. By February 13, Flynn was fired.

I sincerely hope you were just confused on this point and not trying to win an argument through weasel tactics.

It was when the story became public that Trump had no choice but to push him out.

You don't know this. You want this to be true, for tribalist reasons.

If this had been a Democratic president, it would be over.

Again, you haven't established that Trump carried out any inappropriate behavior. In fact, I do find many of Trump's actions inappropriate, but so far you've barked up the wrong tree.

Moreover, the Clintons got away with a variety of questionable behavior including multiple inappropriate pardons. Hillary Clinton's handling of the Rajiv Fernando appointment was highly inappropriate, yet Clinton still won the popular vote. This is evidence that your claim is wrong.

Huh? There's lots of evidence for that, including (but not limited to) the fact that Trump said that that's why he fired him in a televised interview.

Produce the time-stamped interview clip. Here, I'll help you:

If you actually listen to the interview with open ears instead of reading a left-wing blogger's summary of it, you might be surprised. You will find that not only is your claim unsubstantiated, but that Trump actually said the opposite of what you claim: he says he did not fire Comey in order to shut down the investigation.

Shit, just publicly calling for political opponents to be arrested would be enough to sink a Democratic president.

None have tried it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. I could imagine Loony Bernie or someone of his ilk saying something to that effect. The Huff Po Bernie Bros on your team would lap it up. "LOCK UP THE BANKERS! LOCK UP THEIR ENABLERS%!@%^"

 

[Limbo Pete]

Something something tribalism

 

[waiguoren]

Obese Pete is currently battling with Salty Fawlty for the title of: lowest-IQ member of the peanut gallery.

In terms of the intellectual level of the competitors, it's like an episode of "Celebrity Jeopardy" without the celebrities!

Obese Pete has the edge right now, but Salty Fawlty has never been one to be outdone in the utter stupidity department. Stay tuned for more mindless comments from the braindead mob!

 

[HomerThompson]

You moved the goalposts. My claim is that there is no evidence that President Trump himself "colluded" with Russia. You changed "Trump" to "the campaign", which is a weasel tactic as we both know political campaigns are sprawling machines comprising thousands of individuals.

At least you acknowledge that "collusion" is not a legal term in this context. There is no crime that Trump could be indicted for called "collusion". You have refused my offers to bet on Trump being indicted for any such crimes, probably because you realize that Dershowitz is correct.

Under our system of government, the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice or any other crime simply for exercising his constitutional authority to fire the FBI Director or Robert Mueller, or for telling someone to shut down an investigation into his campaign. This is unfortunate, and our system should be changed, but that's the status quo.




Your thinking on this question appears highly muddled, undoubtedly owing to tribalism.

Tribalists lump their enemies and all their enemies' associates together into one evil group. You are claiming that the presence of Michael Flynn as a top member of Trump's cabinet is evidence that the entire administration and/or Trump himself is "colluding" with Russia. To any rational person, this is improper.

In this case, of course it is reasonable to point out that Trump was unwilling to tolerate even the appearance of an inappropriate connection to Russia. Flynn was fired swiftly.





This shows either ignorance or dishonesty on your part. I do hope it is the former.

Yates spoke to McGahn about Flynn from January 24 to January 27. By February 13, Flynn was fired.

I sincerely hope you were just confused on this point and not trying to win an argument through weasel tactics.


You don't know this. You want this to be true, for tribalist reasons.


Again, you haven't established that Trump carried out any inappropriate behavior. In fact, I do find many of Trump's actions inappropriate, but so far you've barked up the wrong tree.

Moreover, the Clintons got away with a variety of questionable behavior including multiple inappropriate pardons. Hillary Clinton's handling of the Rajiv Fernando appointment was highly inappropriate, yet Clinton still won the popular vote. This is evidence that your claim is wrong.



Produce the time-stamped interview clip. Here, I'll help you:

If you actually listen to the interview with open ears instead of reading a left-wing blogger's summary of it, you might be surprised. You will find that not only is your claim unsubstantiated, but that Trump actually said the opposite of what you claim: he says he did not fire Comey in order to shut down the investigation.


None have tried it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. I could imagine Loony Bernie or someone of his ilk saying something to that effect. The Huff Po Bernie Bros on your team would lap it up. "LOCK UP THE BANKERS! LOCK UP THEIR ENABLERS%!@%^"

https://media.giphy.com/media/:eek::eek::eek:vFsTHxXd96/giphy.gif

 

[Jack V Savage]

You moved the goalposts. My claim is that there is no evidence that President Trump himself "colluded" with Russia. You changed "Trump" to "the campaign", which is a weasel tactic as we both know political campaigns are sprawling machines comprising thousands of individuals.

There's no goalpost moving, and Flynn and Manafort weren't bit players. I assume only that Trump is in control of his own campaign, which is the natural assumption, and one you'd agree with if you were trying to take an honest look at the situation rather than playing lawyer for your tribe.

At least you acknowledge that "collusion" is not a legal term in this context. There is no crime that Trump could be indicted for called "collusion". You have refused my offers to bet on Trump being indicted for any such crimes, probably because you realize that Dershowitz is correct.

I wouldn't call it an acknowledgement, and I haven't read Dershowitz's argument, but to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that collusion was the name of the crime here. It's just used to mean that they were in cahoots, as Russia was hacking Trump's opponent, deceptively distributing it, spreading fake news around social media, etc.

Under our system of government, the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice or any other crime simply for exercising his constitutional authority to fire the FBI Director or Robert Mueller, or for telling someone to shut down an investigation into his campaign. This is unfortunate, and our system should be changed, but that's the status quo.

Yes, I've seen that ridiculous argument. You've gone from playing lawyer to Trump, to uncritically repeating a much-mocked claim by his actual lawyer. Vox has a piece with people weighing in on it:

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/16733422/fbi-deal-trump-flynn-russia-comey

It's interesting that a former libertarian is now advancing it. That pretty clearly shows that your tribal attachments take precedence over your principles, no?

In this case, of course it is reasonable to point out that Trump was unwilling to tolerate even the appearance of an inappropriate connection to Russia. Flynn was fired swiftly.

This is simply inaccurate. Flynn was fired long after Trump would have been aware that he was lying to Pence, and only when it became politically untenable to not fire him. Your interpretation is comical, and I suspect you're arguing in bad faith.

Again, you haven't established that Trump carried out any inappropriate behavior. In fact, I do find many of Trump's actions inappropriate, but so far you've barked up the wrong tree.

You don't consider the president tweeting out that law enforcement should go after his opponent (who, NB, was investigated and cleared) to be inappropriate? See above. I hope you at least have the intellectual honesty to stop calling yourself a libertarian after this kind of thing.

Moreover, the Clintons got away with a variety of questionable behavior including multiple inappropriate pardons. Hillary Clinton's handling of the Rajiv Fernando appointment was highly inappropriate, yet Clinton still won the popular vote. This is evidence that your claim is wrong.

"The Clintons" is funny. Bill was the president. Did have some shady pardons on the way out the door, which obviously wouldn't be something Republicans would go after him for in any major way (note that he was frivolously impeached, though, which hurts your case).

Produce the time-stamped interview clip.

Heh. You know that Trump's inability to focus enough to express a clear thought in a sentence makes that approach impossible. He said he was going to fire him regardless of the recommendation of Rosenstein and this:

And in fact when I decided to just do it I said to myself, I said, “You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.

Lester keeps asking him if he really means what he said there, and he kind of weasels away from answering. He also plays dumb about Russian hacking and generally interfering with the election (and interestingly grants that it's horrible while absurdly denying it).

None have tried it yet, so I'll reserve judgment. I could imagine Loony Bernie or someone of his ilk saying something to that effect. The Huff Po Bernie Bros on your team would lap it up. "LOCK UP THE BANKERS! LOCK UP THEIR ENABLERS%!@%^"

Being a liberal, I don't have a "team" the way you do. And re-read your first sentence here. You're saying that in a hypothetical world where the loonies have taken over the Democratic Party the way they've taken over the GOP, loonies on the left would be OK with it. True! But in the real world, nothing like that has ever happened. And the point about double standards was made in reference to the real world. In fact, Obama has been criticized by the left for not acting the way Trump has. And if he did act that way, the MSM and GOP would be pushing hard for impeachment, and enough Democrats would agree that it would happen.

 

[waiguoren]

There's no goalpost moving

You asserted that Trump colluded with the Russians. After I pressed you on it, you changed to "the campaign" colluding with the Russians. Anyone with half a brain can see that's shifting the goalposts.

I assume only that Trump is in control of his own campaign,

Specify your terms. You assume he was "in control" enough that he knew exactly which unethical behaviors Flynn and Manafort had engaged in outside the campaign? That's a big stretch.

I wouldn't call it an acknowledgement, and I haven't read Dershowitz's argument, but to my knowledge no one has ever suggested that collusion was the name of the crime here. It's just used to mean that they were in cahoots, as Russia was hacking Trump's opponent, deceptively distributing it, spreading fake news around social media, etc.

You still haven't provided any evidence that Donald Trump himself was "in cahoots" with Russia to do anything illegal or even unethical.

You also still haven't listed a single crime that you suspect Trump to be guilty of.

Yes, I've seen that ridiculous argument. You've gone from playing lawyer to Trump, to uncritically repeating a much-mocked claim by his actual lawyer. Vox has a piece with people weighing in on it:

https://www.vox.com/2017/12/4/16733422/fbi-deal-trump-flynn-russia-comey

Strawman. Drink your morning coffee before reading my posts or they might go over your head. I engage with you in part because I expect you to read my post fairly before responding.

Never did I claim that the president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice. Nixon was certainly guilty of obstruction of justice for authorizing the paying of hush money to the Watergate burglary team. Bill Clinton was also guilty of obstruction of justice because he encouraged Monica Lewinsky to file a false affidavit, encouraged her to give false testimony, attempted to get Lewinsky a job in exchange for her false testimony etc.

But: the president can never be guilty of obstruction of justice for merely* pardoning a criminal, firing an inferior, or merely using his words to persuade someone to stop an investigation into him or his associates. *if money changed hands, bribery (a crime) could be involved. Hence my use of the term "merely"

The Vox article you posted is therefore irrelevant to my argument. But if you are so tribalistic that you will only accept arguments that appear on cushy left-wing sites, check the opinion of law Professor Ric Simmons on that page.

This is simply inaccurate. Flynn was fired long after Trump would have been aware that he was lying to Pence

When do you think Trump became aware? As far as I know, January 24, 2017 is the earliest Trump would have known.

You don't consider the president tweeting out that law enforcement should go after his opponent (who, NB, was investigated and cleared) to be inappropriate?

I have written many times on these forums that I do find that behavior inappropriate. Sets a bad precedent. Shouldn't be impeachable, in my opinion.

"The Clintons" is funny. Bill was the president.

Clinton left office with very high approval ratings despite criminal activity, plenty of obfuscation in public interviews, and multiple shady pardons throughout his tenure. This badly hurts your argument that Democrats would be pilloried for shady behavior. EDIT: I should have written that this undermines your argument that a Democratic president would have been impeached and removed from office for such behavior.

Heh. You know that Trump's inability to focus enough to express a clear thought in a sentence makes that approach impossible.

You claimed that in an interview, Trump admitted to firing Comey in order to end the investigation. I am waiting for the evidence. This is a major backtrack on your part.

He said he was going to fire him regardless of the recommendation of Rosenstein and this:

It's a giant leap to go from "Trump was so eager to fire Comey that he was going to overlook Rosenstein's recommendation" to "Trump fired Comey to shut down an investigation", especially when numerous statements in that interview contradict the latter statement. You're veering dangerously close to the "Hillary Clinton is a murderer"-level conspiracy theorizing frame of mind.

Lester keeps asking him if he really means what he said there, and he kind of weasels away from answering. He also plays dumb about Russian hacking and generally interfering with the election (and interestingly grants that it's horrible while absurdly denying it).

You're on a first-name basis with Lester Holt now? What's your history with him?

Trump is quite clear in the interview. Again, your failure to listen carefully is quite alarming. Trump says:

• Comey was incompetent. He was the wrong person to head the FBI.
  
• Trump wanted to fire Comey from the start because Comey was an incompetent grandstander
  
• There was no good time to fire Comey because the investigation was ongoing. It would look bad regardless
• If Russia hacked the DNC or otherwise interfered with the election, that's something that needs to be investigated thoroughly and properly and Russia should be punished.

You can argue that Trump is untrustworthy and that you don't believe him. That's subject to interpretation, and you and I probably could find common ground on the matter. I don't find Trump trustworthy and I think he's an egomaniac. But you misrepresented the content of the Holt interview and you should admit to it.

Being a liberal, I don't have a "team" the way you do.

This is funny. You assert I have a "team", but in the past you've been unable to identify that team besides vague mentioning of "ethnocentrism". I also don't refer to myself as a "libertarian", so you might want to stop with that line of argument.

And re-read your first sentence here. You're saying that in a hypothetical world where the loonies have taken over the Democratic Party the way they've taken over the GOP, loonies on the left would be OK with it.

My position is that if the Dems had won the election with a loudmouthed candidate who called for his political opponent to be locked up, that likely wouldn't be enough to "sink the presidency" of said Democrat.

 

[waiguoren]

 

[Limbo Pete]

 

[Jack V Savage]

You asserted that Trump colluded with the Russians. After I pressed you on it, you changed to "the campaign" colluding with the Russians.

I'm aware of Trump's defense (here and elsewhere). I just don't buy it. Trump colluded with the Russians. Evidence of that is the fact that some of his inner circle has admitted to committing crimes relating to that collusion. The assumption that he didn't know what was going on around him doesn't strike me as sound. And, more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, it wouldn't be made on behalf of a Democratic president.

Specify your terms. You assume he was "in control" enough that he knew exactly which unethical behaviors Flynn and Manafort had engaged in outside the campaign? That's a big stretch.

It's not a stretch at all. It would be a totally uncontroversial assumption with any other president ever, and it shouldn't be controversial here. Additionally, see the link I posted. It appears likely that Trump instructed Flynn to lie to the FBI and that Mueller is trying to establish that.

You also still haven't listed a single crime that you suspect Trump to be guilty of.

Instructing someone to lie to the FBI is a crime.

But: the president can never be guilty of obstruction of justice for merely* pardoning a criminal, firing an inferior, or merely using his words to persuade someone to stop an investigation into him or his associates. *if money changed hands, bribery (a crime) could be involved. Hence my use of the term "merely"

The Vox article you posted is therefore irrelevant to my argument. But if you are so tribalistic that you will only accept arguments that appear on cushy left-wing sites, check the opinion of law Professor Ric Simmons on that page.

Ugh. This kind of thing is almost beneath my dignity to respond to. See the argument below Simmons'.

When do you think Trump became aware? As far as I know, January 24, 2017 is the earliest Trump would have known.

Flynn lied to the FBI on Jan. 24 (and the WH counsel was informed of that two days later). The lie to Pence was in December. The latest Trump can plausibly claim to have known that Flynn lied to the FBI was Jan. 26, and Flynn stayed around for 18 days after. The reason it took Trump so long to act there is also being looked into (again, see the NBC story). Also note that Trump fired Yates only four days after she informed Trump that Flynn lied to the FBI and that it was after he knew all that that he asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn (and remember he later fired Comey for refusing to do so).

I have written many times on these forums that I do find that behavior inappropriate. Sets a bad precedent. Shouldn't be impeachable, in my opinion.

Do you think Paul Ryan, Fox, and the MSM would agree with you if it were a Democratic president doing that?

Clinton left office with very high approval ratings despite criminal activity, plenty of obfuscation in public interviews, and multiple shady pardons throughout his tenure.

I'm not aware what you're referring to here. I do know that he was, in fact, frivolously impeached.

You claimed that in an interview, Trump admitted to firing Comey in order to end the investigation. I am waiting for the evidence. This is a major backtrack on your part.

In a rambling interview, he said that he got rid of him because of the Russia investigation. I acknowledge that he also backtracked during that interview. We can also point out that he told Russian officials that firing Comey took a lot of pressure off him related to the investigation. I feel ridiculous even having to make this case. Given all we know, what is your counter theory of why Comey was fired?

But you misrepresented the content of the Holt interview and you should admit to it.

Let me clearer, then. Trump's responses in that interview amount to an admission, which he backtracked on. Putting everything he's said about it (the first obvious lie, the disavowal of that lie in the interview, the other comments in the interview, the comments to Russian officials), we know that he fired Comey because he wouldn't drop the investigation.

And let me add that Mueller could well be fired, also. If so, the reason given will be a lie (we're already seeing the right-wing media trying to give cover to Trump for it, and I'd guess most people who get their news from Fox or Breitbart already believe Mueller *should* be fired). But the actual reason will be that Trump doesn't want to be investigated.

This is funny. You assert I have a "team", but in the past you've been unable to identify that team besides vague mentioning of "ethnocentrism". I also don't refer to myself as a "libertarian", so you might want to stop with that line of argument.

I thought you had referred to yourself that way and not fancied yourself someone who is willing to defend gov't corruption and authoritarianism as long as the gov't officials have an R next to their name.

My position is that if the Dems had won the election with a loudmouthed candidate who called for his political opponent to be locked up, that likely wouldn't be enough to "sink the presidency" of said Democrat.

Again, that would mean a different reality. Look who won their last several nominations. A Trump-like character wouldn't get nominated by Democrats or win (again, remember that the MSM holds Democrats to much higher standards, and the MSM has much more credibility with the Democratic base).

 

[Rational Poster]

It really bothers me when people do these multi quote arguments.