- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The timeline doesnt lie. Trump investigation was started AFTER he won the nomination
Posted on 5/16/18 at 6:25 pm to GRTiger
Posted on 5/16/18 at 6:25 pm to GRTiger
quote:They weren't insuring against a Trump win; they were insuring against the factors that would increase the odds of Trump winning to prevent the loss they were trying to prevent, Trump winning.
TIL people in this thread think an insurance policy prevents what it's used to insure against.
Think about it. An insurance policy is a minimal amount against a minimal risk to hedge against a disproportionate loss with a disproportionate payout to compensate for that.
In this case, if it was an unethical if not an illegal plot, the insurance payment was anything but minimal. And if it was intended to be a hedge IF Trump won, then they payment itself became a bigger risk and the payout was disproportionately smaller since Trump in power was counter to their personal, Profesional, legal, and political livelihoods.
In other words, Trump winning the election was not only the opposite of that they wanted to prevent, all of the things they would have done to prevent it would put their careers and even freedom (as in jail) at risk. And the only benefit would have been some political inconvenience for Trump.
But instead you're ignoring how illogical this conclusion by trying to make the most literal possible interpretation of some analogustexts between two people that has little context as if people make perfect analogies when texting one another even if illogical. Except of course when people discuss pizza, they must actually be talking in secret code about human trafficking.
1
Posted on 5/16/18 at 6:47 pm to buckeye_vol
You are incredible. I know you're not too stupid to understand what I'm saying, and what the text was saying. You are going to great lengths to interpret his meaning with nothing other than your desire to be right.
Tell me how reading it this way is doing anything but simply comprehending his words.
He used insurance policy. He didn't say "I wish I could accept the theory that there is no way my house will be broken into, but I can't take that chance, so I'm going to lock my doors."
He said "I wish I could accept the theory that there is no way my house will be broken into, but I can't take that chance, so I'm going to insure my things."
He obviously likened Trump winning to dying before 40, so in both cases, the triggering event would enable the use of the insurance policy (in this case as much damming information as possible on Trump).
It's even more ridiculous that you are arguing that he meant preventing Trump winning while simultaneously pointing out how they didn't even try. Doesn't that kill your argument?
Admit you are hinging your entire argument on an interpretation without supporting context. My interpretation is based on his text, the meaning of words, and the fact that as soon as he won, they began the hard press related to all the bullshite they were putting together.
Tell me how reading it this way is doing anything but simply comprehending his words.
He used insurance policy. He didn't say "I wish I could accept the theory that there is no way my house will be broken into, but I can't take that chance, so I'm going to lock my doors."
He said "I wish I could accept the theory that there is no way my house will be broken into, but I can't take that chance, so I'm going to insure my things."
He obviously likened Trump winning to dying before 40, so in both cases, the triggering event would enable the use of the insurance policy (in this case as much damming information as possible on Trump).
It's even more ridiculous that you are arguing that he meant preventing Trump winning while simultaneously pointing out how they didn't even try. Doesn't that kill your argument?
Admit you are hinging your entire argument on an interpretation without supporting context. My interpretation is based on his text, the meaning of words, and the fact that as soon as he won, they began the hard press related to all the bullshite they were putting together.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:14 pm to GRTiger
quote:There is basically no context, and it's in a text--not some official memo.
Admit you are hinging your entire argument on an interpretation without supporting context
It just doesn't make sense to absolutely abhor the possibility of Trump winning so much, that they are willing to hatch a plot that would at best be improper, and at worst be illegal, to dig up dirt that would be politically damaging.
But instead of using it to prevent the thing they despise, when Trump only has political but not real power, they keep it hidden? And not only does the information become far less valuable when he has real power, that real power would mean that they're plot would be exponentially more likely to be discovered and used against them, risking their careers if not worse.
If Trump and Hillary positions were flipped and you were in their shoes, what ensurance would you have not using it to help Hillary lose and increasing the odds she becomes your boss and finding out about your plot?
There is just no logical insurance policy once the person is in power and your boss.
But you're probably right. These irrational cheating lovers discussing the thing they're most irrational about obviously use precise language when using a rhetorical device through an informal means of communication.
This post was edited on 5/16/18 at 7:24 pm
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:24 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
There is basically no context
There is context in the specific analogy he used, but you got mad for me being "literal" simply by using it as context to determine what he was saying.
quote:
It just doesn't make sense to absolutely abhor the possibility of Trump winning so much, that they are willing to hatch a plot that would at best be improper, and at worst be illegal, to dig up dirt that would be politically damaging.
But doing all that and then publicizing it as an overt preventive measure is more logical?
If what they assumed was a sure thing happened, the secret "plot" would disappear. Minimal risk.
If the unthinkable happened, they had that insurance policy to mitigate the consequences of the "early death."
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:30 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
But you're probably right. These irrational cheating lovers discussing the thing they're most irrational about obviously use precise language when using a rhetorical device through an informal means of communication.
Oh my bad. I should ignore what they said and just assume he meant exactly what I want it to mean in order strengthen my point.
You're probably right. This text was in reference to acting in a way they didn't act, which of course removes all meaning and importance from that particular text, which everyone on earth except you sees as pretty fricking damming. The most convenient "only logical explanation" I think I've ever seen. Solid.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:35 pm to GRTiger
quote:Teere is no context. We don't know what he insurance policy is in regards to.
There is context in the specific analogy he used, but you got mad for me being "literal" simply by using it as context to determine what he was saying.
Maybe you're right and the analogy was correct, and the insurance policy was related to something else altogether, maybe even something not nefarious.
Or maybe they are talking about something nefarious but the analogy, as a rhetorical device to get a complex point across, using a means of communication that is informal and imprecise, wasn't perfect.
So assuming a specific context that is not provided AND expecting a perfect asd precise analogy AND disregarding how asinine the plan would be means it's not the most logical conclusion because Occam's Razor.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:36 pm to GRTiger
quote:Fine he meant for an insurance policy in case Trump did win. Now show me what the insurance policy is about.
Oh my bad. I should ignore what they said and just assume he meant exactly what I want it to mean in order strengthen my point.
This post was edited on 5/16/18 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:42 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So assuming a specific context that is not provided AND expecting a perfect asd precise analogy AND disregarding how asinine the plan would be means it's not the most logical conclusion because Occam's Razor.
Have you ever been wrong in your own mind on this board?
That's the most tortured recap of the most simple analysis of two incredibly simple sentences I've ever seen. Seriously.
They needed to do "something" to have an "insurance policy" in their back pocket in the event Trump won.
Review their actions after Trump's win and any rational person can surmise what the frick they were talking about. Except you. If I told "I'm going to take drastic measures of Hillary wins" and then cut my dick off in that alternate reality, apparently you'd say "now now, we don't know what drastic measures means without some context."
I can't believe I'm still talking to you about this.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:52 pm to RobbBobb
Pretty much what I said in the OP. The NYT has phonied up the timeline to make it look like the 'good guys' were doing work.
But all it actually does is admit that the Obama admin went into full-scale panic after Trump locked down the nomination
Posted on 5/16/18 at 7:58 pm to GRTiger
quote:Nope.
Have you ever been wrong in your own mind on this board?
Well apparently I’m not the only one.
Lawfare
quote:So Yeah. The two lovers seem to have such a deep and irrational bias that their overall communications are problematic.
That’s very troubling, as is the fact that both participants moved to Robert Mueller’s staff to investigate the president. As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent in Morrison v. Olsen, there’s great risk that the people most eager to join a special prosecutor’s staff are those who are burning to take down the person under investigation. These texts certainly raise that concern.
quote:
But the president’s defenders are off base when they try read conspiracy into Peter Strzok’s “insurance policy” message.
quote:
Strzok was reacting to the argument that there was no point getting worked up because Trump was bound to lose. He argued in response that the odds against a Trump victory offered no reason to be complacent and gave an example:
quote:
The odds are also very much against you dying before the age of 40, but you probably bought insurance at that age because dying with a young family would be such a disaster; the expense is reasonable even if the event is unlikely.
quote:
For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote.
quote:
Could he have written it more gracefully to avoid ambiguity? Sure. But if that is what you want to argue, I hope you’ll publish all the 2 a.m. texts you’ve sent to your lovers so we have a model of the clarity that’s possible.
quote:
The texts say a lot, none of it good, about the FBI’s culture and Bob Mueller’s staffing choices. They say nothing about a grand plot by the Deep State.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:06 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
For the same reason, in Strzok’s view, horror at the prospect of a Trump presidency is reasonable even though the prospect is remote.
So the insurance policy is the simple horror at the thought of a Trump Presidency?
I'm no longer going to argue with you. I'm just going to quote your bullshite for posterity.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:08 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
But all it actually does is admit that the Obama admin went into full-scale panic after Trump locked down the nomination
I thought I saw something Monday evening that made the newest revelation that Brennan had the CIA spying on the Trump Campaign earlier than the nomination. I believe this was related to the FBI mole speculation well prior to the nomination and the Dossier.
What was talked about was that the FBI human intelligence source may have been a person that was not actually a FBI employee but an informer that Brennan placed inside the campaign. There is no evidence of that but more should come out when Nunes gets the DOJ info they are looking for.
The smoke on this fire is that the FBI was sucking info out of the Trump Campaign before the Steele Dossier which calls bullshite on the Dossier being the reason for the FISA warrants. They were spying before that it appears...
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:16 pm to GRTiger
quote:Just admit it. Neither us has any idea what specifically they're referring to and whether it's legitimate and valid or a nefarious plot.
So the insurance policy is the simple horror at the thought of a Trump Presidency?
I'm no longer going to argue with you. I'm just going to quote your bull shite for posterity.
And nobody would expect random people reading our random texts to be able to infer exactly everything we meant and our exact motivations.
They deserve criticism for their irrational and unprofessional views. But it's unfair to anybody to take a conversation with minimal context, via text messaging, and various rhetorical devices and assume we know exactly what they meant and exactly why they wrote it.
This post was edited on 5/16/18 at 8:17 pm
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:28 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
They deserve criticism for their irrational and unprofessional views
Anything else?
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:35 pm to GRTiger
quote:Well cheating too. And not recusing themselves from their job or their relationship.
Anything else?
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:50 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Flynn for some reason cannot be sentenced
They usually don't want to sentence cooperating witnesses until they're sure they've wrung every bit of useful information out of them. Likely there's more Flynn has to say about Trump et al.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:53 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
They usually don't want to sentence cooperating witnesses until they're sure they've wrung every bit of useful information out of them. Likely there's more Flynn has to say about Trump et al
What? Where did you get this from? This isn't true at all!
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:55 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
They usually don't want to sentence cooperating witnesses until they're sure they've wrung every bit of useful information out of them. Likely there's more Flynn has to say about Trump et al.
delusional
Posted on 5/16/18 at 8:57 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
delusional
quote:
BamaAtl
Well, yea.
I didn't think people still responded to that poster.
Posted on 5/16/18 at 9:06 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
And they've already found 23 witches?
What is sad is that you choose to be this stupid. How do you make it through a day?
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News