Jump to content

Can't help but wonder

stevenash

By stevenash
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
50 minutes ago, Coach Frey said:

I didn't avoid any question. Read above. I answered clearly. No I don't believe Mueller used political leanings as a bias in selection.

You on the other hand seem to be completely okay with an individual who plays both sides. I can't for the life of me see how an individual who claims to be a Republican, a conservative, pro life, pro second amendment, etc. could donate to Clinton, no matter the reason.

First, Trump is not a conservative, but the question wasn’t about him.

I will ask again, you see no bias or the possibility of an agenda with Mueller’s team.

Simple yes or no...don’t chase a Trump rabbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coach Frey

Coach Frey

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

First, Trump is not a conservative, but the question wasn’t about him.

I will ask again, you see no bias or the possibility of an agenda with Mueller’s team.

Simple yes or no...don’t chase a Trump rabbit.

For a third time, no I did not see any bias in Mueller's selections. Not sure how many times I have to answer this question. I see what you are hunting for, but the Mueller Report pretty much showed most leftist notions were false, this was done with a group that had some with Democratic ties......that doesn't help your argument. It shows that the group did their job properly and not based on political leanings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coach Frey

Coach Frey

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

First, Trump is not a conservative, but the question wasn’t about him.

I will ask again, you see no bias or the possibility of an agenda with Mueller’s team.

Simple yes or no...don’t chase a Trump rabbit.

4 minutes ago, Coach Frey said:

For a third time, no I did not see any bias in Mueller's selections. Not sure how many times I have to answer this question. I see what you are hunting for, but the Mueller Report pretty much showed most leftist notions were false, this was done with a group that had some with Democratic ties......that doesn't help your argument. It shows that the group did their job properly and not based on political leanings.

You can say that again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Coach Frey said:

I was pretty clear on my view of this. 

I can see you are trying to weave a web here, but I'm not exactly sure what your angle is. 

You are clear on your view of stereotyping. My question is do you think other people hold your same views, and can be trusted to seek unbiased truth towards those that look different or act different. Do you feel that a homogeneous group can pass unbiased judgement on a person that is different than the group? You have stated you don't think Mueller's lawyers were chosen using political leanings. Since the vast majority lean one way politically, do you feel his (homogeneous) selections are/were capable of unbiased judgement in the probe? Would you feel comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you?

Edit: I just saw your answer to LumRaiderFan's question. Your post to him still does not answer my question though, so I will keep this post as is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Coach Frey said:

For a third time, no I did not see any bias in Mueller's selections. Not sure how many times I have to answer this question. I see what you are hunting for, but the Mueller Report pretty much showed most leftist notions were false, this was done with a group that had some with Democratic ties......that doesn't help your argument. It shows that the group did their job properly and not based on political leanings.

It shows Trump was innocent...plain and simple.  This group spent two years investigating a man, not a crime.  This very anti Trump group went in with the presumption of guilt and I have no doubt were very disappointed that they couldn’t fulfill their responsibility of finding Trump guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coach Frey

Coach Frey

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Englebert said:

You are clear on your view of stereotyping. My question is do you think other people hold your same views, and can be trusted to seek unbiased truth towards those that look different or act different. Do you feel that a homogeneous group can pass unbiased judgement on a person that is different than the group? You have stated you don't think Mueller's lawyers were chosen using political leanings. Since the vast majority lean one way politically, do you feel his (homogeneous) selections are/were capable of unbiased judgement in the probe? Would you feel comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you?

Edit: I just saw your answer to LumRaiderFan's question. Your post to him still does not answer my question though, so I will keep this post as is.

2 hours ago, Englebert said:

You are clear on your view of stereotyping. My question is do you think other people hold your same views, and can be trusted to seek unbiased truth towards those that look different or act different. Do you feel that a homogeneous group can pass unbiased judgement on a person that is different than the group? You have stated you don't think Mueller's lawyers were chosen using political leanings. Since the vast majority lean one way politically, do you feel his (homogeneous) selections are/were capable of unbiased judgement in the probe? Would you feel comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you?

Edit: I just saw your answer to LumRaiderFan's question. Your post to him still does not answer my question though, so I will keep this post as is.

I do believe that group was able to pass an unbiased judgement without regard for political leanings. If they hadn't, Trump would already be impeached. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coach Frey

Coach Frey

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

It shows Trump was innocent...plain and simple.  This group spent two years investigating a man, not a crime.  This very anti Trump group went in with the presumption of guilt and I have no doubt were very disappointed that they couldn’t fulfill their responsibility of finding Trump guilty.

Well that is your opinion (they were disappointed) not a fact. Now you are the one running from the issue. You made the claim that there was bias. The group came back pretty much clearing Trump. Your argument fell flat on it's face and so your rebuttal to my response that noted that was to say, "oh they were probably mad."  Facts are stubborn things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coach Frey

Coach Frey

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Englebert said:

You are clear on your view of stereotyping. My question is do you think other people hold your same views, and can be trusted to seek unbiased truth towards those that look different or act different. Do you feel that a homogeneous group can pass unbiased judgement on a person that is different than the group? You have stated you don't think Mueller's lawyers were chosen using political leanings. Since the vast majority lean one way politically, do you feel his (homogeneous) selections are/were capable of unbiased judgement in the probe? Would you feel comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you?

Edit: I just saw your answer to LumRaiderFan's question. Your post to him still does not answer my question though, so I will keep this post as is.

I also question your statement "would you be comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you." I'd like to see the link of all these individuals who were not fans of Trump. Merely being a Democrat doesn't mean you are out to get Trump. If that is the case, as your argument seems to present, you have a lot of explaining to do as to why our Republican president donated to Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Coach Frey said:

Well that is your opinion (they were disappointed) not a fact. Now you are the one running from the issue. You made the claim that there was bias. The group came back pretty much clearing Trump. Your argument fell flat on it's face and so your rebuttal to my response that noted that was to say, "oh they were probably mad."  Facts are stubborn things.

They didn’t clear Trump...he was innocent all along.  My argument is backed up by all the crooked deep state players and the Democrats that were trying to impeach him on garbage they were guilty of.

You seem to think that these were fine non partisan folks just because they did Trump the favor of not finding him guilty...or they “cleared” him as you put it.

They tried for two years (ridiculous in itself) and could find nothing no matter how hard they tried.

My argument is solid...the group was bias and on a witch hunt...just nothing for them to find, even though they stretched it out two years. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Englebert

Englebert

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Coach Frey said:

I also question your statement "would you be comfortable being investigated by 20 lawyers who you know are not fans of you." I'd like to see the link of all these individuals who were not fans of Trump. Merely being a Democrat doesn't mean you are out to get Trump. If that is the case, as your argument seems to present, you have a lot of explaining to do as to why our Republican president donated to Democrats.

I didn't say the lawyers on the Trump probe where not his fans. I asked if you would be comfortable with knowing people investigating you were not fans of yours. Based on the fact that the Mueller team where Democrat donors, the perception of a biased team was apparent.

Having to endure all of the pathetic rhetoric flung Trump's way, especially from Democrats, to have 20 high-priced lawyers that donated to Clinton must have been unsettling for him, and for a lot of people. It would be like a Black man on trial with 12 card-carrying KKK members as the jurors. Or a White man on trial with 12 antifa members as the jurors. Maybe they would be fair, maybe not. The perception is not favorable to that outcome. That was my whole point. Why did Mueller choose a team with most, if not all, Clinton donors? If he thought these were the best, so be it. But the perception is that such a partisan looking team would probably not be fair. Why bring that element into the equation? And the report does not provide evidence whether they were biased or not. Since you have indicated you are okay with the Mueller team, are you okay with other homogeneous groups in charge of investigating/judging others who are not like them? Are perceived partisan groups okay in all situations, or just when it involves Trump?

Your question of my posts makes your last statement mute. But even if my interpretation was as you guessed, I would not have a lot of explaining to do. Trump donated to both sides, in my opinion to curry favor. Did the lawyers donate to Hillary (and just Hillary/Democrats) in an attempt to gain favoritism? And even if Trump donated to Democrats only, considering he lived in New York that would not be a big deal. Trump has never been a true Conservative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
stevenash

stevenash

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Coach Frey said:

Well that is your opinion (they were disappointed) not a fact. Now you are the one running from the issue. You made the claim that there was bias. The group came back pretty much clearing Trump. Your argument fell flat on it's face and so your rebuttal to my response that noted that was to say, "oh they were probably mad."  Facts are stubborn things.

Sorry, but the presence of bias does not guarantee a guilty of collusion conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Coach Frey said:

Except he doesn't.

Apparently you haven't kept up with many of the policies he has put through...or you refuse to acknowledge them because you really don't like the guy.

That you seem to think the Mueller process was respectable and above board simply because they couldn't hang something on him and "cleared" him says enough.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PhatMack19

PhatMack19

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, Coach Frey said:

Well that is your opinion (they were disappointed) not a fact. Now you are the one running from the issue. You made the claim that there was bias. The group came back pretty much clearing Trump. Your argument fell flat on it's face and so your rebuttal to my response that noted that was to say, "oh they were probably mad."  Facts are stubborn things.

2 of them(that we know of) were actively trying to overthrow the duly elected President of the United States.  They should be tried for Treason.  I’m not sure how that’s non biased 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, Bobcat1 said:

Does anyone have a list that shows who made donations to democrats that were on Muller's team?  

This is the hidden content, please

From the article:

Duffy says Mueller "has brought in Democrat campaign donors at a very high level" on his team of lawyers.

Six of the 15 lawyers who have been publicly identified have not made campaign contributions to any political campaigns at the federal level. But among the lawyers who did make contributions, a total of $62,043 went to Democrats and $2,750 to Republicans, according to the special counsel’s office.

Link to comment
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.

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.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,933
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • tvc184
      It’s kinda weird…

      By tvc184 · Posted

      Yeah, I got that but talk about a stretch. It should seem obvious that Trump’s prosecution is purely political. If someone is going to do a whataboutism, at least make it similar.  This is so ludicrous that it’s like comparing a ham sandwich to a wallet.   
    • Englebert
      It’s kinda weird…

      By Englebert · Posted

      You consistently try to say Trump ran our debt up and that the stock market and job market cratered during his administration (along with other MSNBC talking points). That is a flat out LIE, and you know it. Not only are you telling a mistruth, you knowingly are telling a mistruth...which is a blatant LIE...which makes you a "(I don't remember what word you used to describe Trump, something like a purse for dirt)" does it not? You know for a fact that the economy, stock market, and job market was thriving under Trump. You know that the Democrats controlled the house, and proposed a budget that would hurt the economy, in which he shut down the government. Even after this fiasco brought on by Democrats, our economy flourished under his administration. Then Covid19 hit, and the blue states shut down the country. YOU KNOW THIS, but continue to blame Trump. You lie...blatantly. Again, what do we call these people that partake in disseminating misleading information. You coined it...that purse thing. Does the shoe fit? I bet it does. It is amazing that you try to put "MAGA people" into this little box for the soul purpose of allowing all negative attributes of anyone that will vote for Trump instead of Biden to be attributed. That is a sickening modus operandi of stupid people. It is hard for me to believe that you would adopt that childish stereotyping. But since you are willing, I'm willing to push back. I'm a Trump supporter. I will gladly vote for him over Biden. So get busy putting me in your silly little box of stereotypes so I can embarrass you some more. You've been shot down by practically everyone on this board when you say stuff like Trump is their Messiah, or that supporters overlook his flaws. Everyone on this board has stated that they don't agree with Trump on much of his behavior, but you ignore these statements and continue with your lies. Oh yeah, since I'm a Trump supporter, those comments were also directed directly at me. So let's go. Prove I'm a simpleton that will ignore all of Trump's flaws and vow to disown the bad ol' orangeman. Let's continue that diatribe you peddle. I now am interested in responding. I also have boxes I can place people in. Whose box is accurate? Better yet, whose box is more embarrassing? I'm fairly certain your box is more entertaining for the board to make fun of. TDS should be included in the DSM-6, or revise the DSM-5 to include it since this phenomenon is so pervasive now. You are a walking, talking picture of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Do you like that box? Can you refute the rationale for placing you in that box. Everyone can refute your rationale for placing them into your irrational box, while you languish in your TDS box.
    • UT alum
      It’s kinda weird…

      By UT alum · Posted

      Clinton got impeached because of it. David Pecker said it was true about Stormy today. Under oath.
    • UT alum
      It’s kinda weird…

      By UT alum · Posted

      Election interference. Cheating.
    • UT alum
      It’s kinda weird…

      By UT alum · Posted

      It’s not about worrying about Trump’s morality. It’s about him being held to a totally hypocritical standard that is applied to anybody else that’s not him. Double it if it happens to be a Democrat. What he did to Ted Cruz in 2016, for example. Accused him of extramarital affairs. Really? And the gang cheered the Master on. Sick is what it is.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...