I use the word penultimate whenever I can as it is pretty well known. Was unaware of the adjectives for third and fourth last until today: they might sound pretentious if used in everyday speech. Another word I like to use when I can is eponymous.
1 Like
I think this just happens naturally to some. Once you buy into some speculation, it can be difficult to pivot. For example, after a lengthy Special Counsel investigation it could not be established that Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia to meddle in the election. Yet some people still cling to this regardless as if it must still be fact. I’m sure many Rs out there will to their dying day cling to the idea that the 2020 election was stolen. Other examples off the top of my head include that Gore really won FL in 2000, and Obama is a secret Kenyan.
“ A sprawling report released Tuesday by a Republican-controlled Senate panel that spent three years investigating Russia’s interference in the 2016 election laid out an extensive web of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Kremlin officials and other Russians, including at least one intelligence officer and others tied to the country’s spy services.”
from Senate Panel Details Ties Between 2016 Trump Campaign and Russia - The New York Times
Just because it was not criminal collusion doesn’t mean his campaign didn’t cooperate extensively with russia, which fits most peoples’ meaning of “collusion.”
For example: “ The Russian government disrupted an American election to help Mr. Trump become president, Russian intelligence services viewed members of the Trump campaign as easily manipulated, and some of Mr. Trump’s advisers were eager for the help from an American adversary.”
Saying this isn’t collusion always reminds me a little of a certain earlier president saying it wasn’t sexual relations.
3 Likes
And propreantepenultimate, apparently.
1 Like
It all depends on what the definition of the word “is” is.
Always seemed strange to me that someone could run for POTUS even if he/she was incarcerated but would be ineligible if he/she was not an American citizen at birth.
I’m not sure why you would connect those two. They are quite different situations.
IMO, getting your followers to invest their ego the way you want them to is pretty important for a politician.
It is CSPAN,'s newest strawman
I think Russia meddled in the election to help Trump. And, Trump was eager to get more Russian help. And, there was some connection that went Trump-Stone-Assange-Russians. The only missing piece is the amount of co-ordination. The word “collusion” suggests a lot. It was more of a wink and a nod.
2 Likes
I think it is fairly common for countries to permit criminals, but not foreigners, to run for President.
Canada may be more of the outlier by permitting its leader to be a foreigner. (Although the selection of a Prime Minister is a different process, and the role is different, than that of a President). And the Canadian head of state (the British monarch) has always been a foreigner. Rules in Canada would probably have been different if Canada, like the US, had been born in a revolution against foreign masters and had set up as a republic.
You should realize that your basis that Trump did not collude with Russia is a document that said he obstructed the investigation into the collusion.
1 Like
Apparently there will be one moron replacing another in the US House
It’s unknown if Gohmert’s successor will be a policymaker or bomb thrower. Nathaniel moron won the Republican nomination earlier this year and is all but ensured to win the general election in the deep-red district.
lol at the software automatically replacing the word mor[a]n with moron.
1 Like
No it didn’t say this. Why do libs have such difficulty following facts when it comes to Trump? Why do they constantly lie about him?
The Mueller report says essentially the same thing about obstruction as it does about collusion. Mueller was unable to conclude he did or didn’t obstruct.
The replies to my post only reinforce my point that libs won’t drop things they want to believe. It’s both comical generally and embarrassing for specific posters here who, of course, felt the need to argue using misinformation and personal bias, thereby making my point for me.
1 Like
How does a bipartisan report from a republican controlled senate count as personal bias?
Or maybe you are carefully parsing the word “collude”.
Another Neocon, former CIA director Michael Hayden, is out there retweeting absurd hyperbole about Trump and Republicans. Why do Neocons and the Democrats they’ve captured hate Republicans and Trump soooo much? What is going on? Why would someone who should be respected squander it all with such absurd rhetoric?
Is this hyperbolic rhetoric a prelude to hyperbolic actions? This rhetoric is so severe that I worry it could lead to gravely un-American and authoritarian actions.
I agree. And I was the CIA Director
I’ve covered extremism and violent ideologies around the world over my career. Have never come across a political force more nihilistic, dangerous & contemptible than today’s Republicans. Nothing close.
Moreover, why is this person that claims to be an extremist expert spewing such laughable hyperbole? I mean, I’m assuming he doesn’t actually believe that Republicans are worse than the Nazis or Khmer Rouge. So it seems like he’s deliberately being a bad person by dehumanizing his political opposition. But with what end in mind? Because this seems well well beyond typical election year rhetoric.
It probably has to do with trump courting white nationalist militant groups to assault the capital and interrupt the democratic transfer of power.
Then not facing any real consequences, and continuing to court those same violent, white nationalist groups.
And the republican party organization abandoning many of its principles and supporting trump despite it all.
2 Likes
This is false.
The Mueller report specifically says "the evidence does not establish that the President was involved in an underlying crime related to Russian election interference.” The report clears Trump of this charge, while at the same time finding that Russia did meddle and prosecuting a bunch of folks involved.
Obstruction is a different matter. From the report “Our investigation found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations,” Mueller wrote. “The incidents were often carried out through one-on-one meetings in which the President sought to use his official power outside of usual channels. These actions ranged from efforts to remove the Special Counsel and to reverse the effect of the Attorney General’s recusal; to the attempted use of official power to limit the scope of the investigation; to direct and indirect contacts with witnesses with the potential to influence their testimony.”
So why didn’t he prosecute him then? From the report, and based on an Office of Legal Counsel Opinion: “the indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the constitutional separation of powers.”
“Because we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct,” Mueller wrote.
Muller was not empowered to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment here. He also specifically said he would have cleared Trump of obstruction if that were the case, just like he did for collusion. “if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment."
4 Likes
You are 100% wrong.
"The evidence we obtained about the
President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that would need to be resolved if we were
making a traditional prosecutorial judgment. At the same time, if we had confidence after a
thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice,
we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach
that judgment. "
Additional readings of the report indicate that they would not indict a sitting president. The wording of this section is different from that of section 1, where Mueller said he did not find evidence of collusion.
2 Likes