When libs wanted Comey gone

[Sea of red]

well then don't complain about her. It's your choice. You can ignore her any time you want.

Fair enough.

[lilpixieofterror]

I don't obsess about it, you do. Check the history between us, you usually come to me looking for a fight, while I usually leave you alone in other threads. Just a few weeks ago you followed me into four separate threads looking for a derail on abortion. It's the same stuff you've done to dozens upon dozens of other opponents you've engage with. I'm certainly nowhere near the first to suggest there's something wrong with you.

That's pretty funny coming from the same person that bad mouths me all over tWeb, like a crazy ex, nearly had a nervous breakdown over mean things said to him over the internet, and continues to drag threads off topic just to bad mouth me, yet I'm the crazy one.

As for your quote from TWoO, really? All I did was quip back "my dog is dead, sorry" and then you went into another unintelligible rant. Sorry you have a talent for putting your foot in your mouth.

Nah you freaked out and demanded why I didn't tell you sorry about your loss. Even though:

1. I told you that I find the 'sorry for your loss' to be merely a thing people say that doesn't do anything (and plenty agree with this view too).
2. I didn't want to deal with your crazy reaction anytime I say a word to you (I.E. right in this very thread.

If your little assertions make you feel better though, go for it.

[lilpixieofterror]

This comes from somebody that is known for terrible reading comprehension, and putting words in her opponents mouths. Your posts are so off base sometimes your friends have to try and gently suggest for you to shut your mouth -- which you can never do because of your ego. Hell, you're so out of it you can't even tell that I'm not interested in engaging with you, and are carrying on like this is a debate.

And your so full of your own ego, that you don't get what I'm doing. I'm doing this to test to see if I was right and I was. You will not ignore me because your own victimhood mentality will not let you. Yeah, it's flat hilarious to see you think I take this seriously or think this is a debate or I'm debating you. I'm not, I'm just testing out theory and it looks like I'm right. Yet again, you're totally off base, but I'm sure you'll soon claim to know my motivations better than I do.

[Sea of red]

And your so full of your own ego, that you don't get what I'm doing. I'm doing this to test to see if I was right and I was. You will not ignore me because your own victimhood mentality will not let you. Yeah, it's flat hilarious to see you think I take this seriously or think this is a debate or I'm debating you. I'm not, I'm just testing out theory and it looks like I'm right. Yet again, you're totally off base, but I'm sure you'll soon claim to know my motivations better than I do.

Had have the last word, eh?

Get help.

[Charles]

It means nothing of the sort. It means you cannot rule out the possibility that the FBI investigation will lead to evidence. Until then you cannot assert that Trump is innocent.

Exactly. Mountain Man calls me a conspiracy nut because I do not want to conclude before the investigation has ended. Seems my conspiracy is based on the fact that I do not just trust Trump. Neither do I contradict Clapper's own word like Mountain Man does. I never said Trump must be guilty. I do not see the point in these personal attacks and misrepresentations of my statements.

[Meh Gerbil]

It means nothing of the sort. It means you cannot rule out the possibility that the FBI investigation will lead to evidence. Until then you cannot assert that Trump is innocent.

I don't understand this at all, Tassman.

1: You've set a standard for law here that cannot be met. Of course he cannot rule out the possibility that the FBI investigation would lead to evidence as that would be stating a universal negative. Under no circumstances and for literally any crime it is illogical to say, "Evidence categorically doesn't exist."
We cannot launch investigations based on that standard because anyone could logically be investigated for any crime at any time.

2: In the absence of evidence the assertion of innocence is not only the most logical choice but also the standard of how our legal system works. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You may be convinced there is a crime here (that's fine), but in the eyes on the law and in the eyes of pure logic the presumption is innocence.

It would be difficult to fit more misconceptions of how law works into two sentences.
I feel like I owe you a beer or something - that had to take some effort.

[One Bad Pig]

Had have the last word, eh?

Get help.

Get a room, you two.

[Sea of red]

Get a room, you two.

Got one for rent?

[One Bad Pig]

Got one for rent?

Yes, but I don't want the cat to hide under the bed for the duration.

[Sea of red]

Yes, but I don't want the cat to hide under the bed for the duration.

I've had to learn not to freak if I can't find my cats.

[Tassman]

I don't understand this at all, Tassman.

1: You've set a standard for law here that cannot be met. Of course he cannot rule out the possibility that the FBI investigation would lead to evidence as that would be stating a universal negative. Under no circumstances and for literally any crime it is illogical to say, "Evidence categorically doesn't exist."
We cannot launch investigations based on that standard because anyone could logically be investigated for any crime at any time.

2: In the absence of evidence the assertion of innocence is not only the most logical choice but also the standard of how our legal system works. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You may be convinced there is a crime here (that's fine), but in the eyes on the law and in the eyes of pure logic the presumption is innocence.

It would be difficult to fit more misconceptions of how law works into two sentences.
I feel like I owe you a beer or something - that had to take some effort.

The assumption of innocence until proven guilty prevails in a public court of law. But this is not what what we're dealing with here, but rather an inquiry, conducted in secret by the FBI, and, until there's an outcome we can say no more than that the enquiry is ongoing.

[Charles]

The assumption of innocence until proven guilty prevails in a public court of law. But this is not what what we're dealing with here, but rather an inquiry, conducted in secret by the FBI, and, until there's an outcome we can say no more than that the enquiry is ongoing.

And, if I may support Tassman, his original comment was directed towards Mountain Man who has repeatedly and wrongly claimed that Clapper would have gone for "even the slightest hint", that his investigation was enough to conclude the FBI investigation beforehand, and that Clapper had claimed Trump was innocent. It seems to me that Mountain Man wants to rule out the possibility that Trump did anything wrong. He has called me a conspiracy nut for not wanting to rule out beforehand but allowing investigation to go on before I conclude.

[Charles]

In the absence of evidence the assertion of innocence is not only the most logical choice but also the standard of how our legal system works. People are assumed innocent until proven guilty. You may be convinced there is a crime here (that's fine), but in the eyes on the law and in the eyes of pure logic the presumption is innocence.

I agree with you on this and I also agree with Tassman's reply regarding this point. Legally speaking we are innocent until proven guilty. When the police or the intelligence services set out to investigate in many cases they start out with very few hints, and slowly they might come up with something and they may assume along the way that a given person is guilty and then they have got reason to go on investigating. But it is up to the court of law to determine whether the assumotion or claim of guilt is justified. Clapper of course knows that the court of law usually only accepts evidence that can reach a level of high confidence. That is perhaps why he has had the same approach to the Trump investigation.

[Sparko]

I agree with you on this and I also agree with Tassman's reply regarding this point. Legally speaking we are innocent until proven guilty. When the police or the intelligence services set out to investigate in many cases they start out with very few hints, and slowly they might come up with something and they may assume along the way that a given person is guilty and then they have got reason to go on investigating. But it is up to the court of law to determine whether the assumotion or claim of guilt is justified. Clapper of course knows that the court of law usually only accepts evidence that can reach a level of high confidence. That is perhaps why he has had the same approach to the Trump investigation.

Except we don't just decided someone is guilty then just keep looking till we find something that satisfies our decision. We investigate and let the evidence decide who is guilty if anyone. In Tassman's world (and apparently yours) we decide that Trump is guilty and just keep looking till we can prove it. If we can't, well that merely means he is good at hiding his tracks, not that he is innocent, so we just keep looking. Police at least have to have SOME evidence to pursue an investigation on a specific individual.

[Charles]

Except we don't just decided someone is guilty then just keep looking till we find something that satisfies our decision. We investigate and let the evidence decide who is guilty if anyone. In Tassman's world (and apparently yours) we decide that Trump is guilty and just keep looking till we can prove it. If we can't, well that merely means he is good at hiding his tracks, not that he is innocent, so we just keep looking. Police at least have to have SOME evidence to pursue an investigation on a specific individual.

Sorry, but it is not something I have decided. Actually I have not yet even "decided" what the outcome of a fair investigation would be, while quite many in here seem to have decided that it is impossible that Trump could have done anything wrong. I allow myself to wait for the conclusion, and I allow myself to think that if Trump is not guilty, then he is quite good at acting as if he was. But I have never said he must be guilty. I have repeatedly said I do not know. The fact that you and Mountain Man wants to attack me for even allowing myself not to conclude beforehand is significant and gives me the impression of a biased approach. However, my impression is that you see things quite a lot more balanced than Mountain Man.

You know that there is evidence that could have been used if one were to go for anything. It was found not to have the degree of confidence that was necessary. That does not mean it would not be sufficient to pursue an investigation in order to look further into the case.