ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Love this pic describes dems aka commies perfectly just look at the cities they run

"

rojimboo wrote:

Do you guys not ever take a holiday from this, or what?

Xav: Is that quote from the Mueller report actually? Or Barr's 4 page 'summary'?

"oh hi rojimboo, welcome back! how's it going?"
Not bad, you know the knee acts up when it's too cold.

"what are you up to?"
Getting back slowly to POE. Heard the redacted Mueller report is out, thought I'd check out this place again.

"oh?"

THen I realised what a cesspool of echoing sentiments it has become, where even simple questions are disregarded in case it conflicts with the narrative alt-lite stories.

"*glares silently*"

*glares back silently*

Some Sunday Funnies, courtesy of the Stately McDaniel Manor blog:

https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2019/04/20/sunday-funnies-04-21-19/













Y'all have a happy Easter! =^[.]^=

Mueller report exonerates Trump, say Americans who did not actually read the Mueller report

https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/people-who-havent-read-the-mueller-report-insist-it-exonerates-trump-2019-4

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Bottom line is we never saw a smoking gun of either Russian interference, hacking or other shit they allege. Most of you were lied into Iraq wars on WMD's that never showed up.. How much that costed 2-3 trillion? Not to mention blood of Americans and Iraqis. 30M is chump change in the lying business. I trust nothing from .gov

Depending on your definition of wmd's hezbollah/isis later found deposits of gas missiles and a fascility capable of producing chemical weapons.

Not to mention the sovereignity of iraq was gone which allowed it to be invaded.

1) genocide of kurds
2) invading neighbouring country's and declarations of war
3) the housing of internationally regognized terorist groups
4) weapons of mass destruction

Don't forget iraq was invaded after saddam hussein utilized gas missiles on civilian outpost's which broke the treaty and violated international regulations.

Keep in mind, any one of the four reasons listed is enough to declare a nation no longer sovereign.

There was also paper evidence of iraq trading with china for balistic shells.(which china ended up not going true with since amerika invaded and showed interest in iraq)

The tragedy of Iraq is pulling back out and leaving the allies of Amerika behind to defend for themselves creating a brewing spot for anti-western sentiment. Both the democrats and republics sanctioned the invasion, it was only after one of the people running for office on the democrats side went full "anti-war" and started gathering votes that the democrats shifted gear and bassicaly put a knife in the back of the Amerikan soldiers in Iraq.

They bassicaly changed their attitude towards the Iraq war not because of international issue's and logic but because of ellections and trying to grab votes and forming an anti-war propaganda campaign. It's an insult to the people actually fighting in Iraq since they agreed to the invasion six months earlier.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Bottom line is we never saw a smoking gun of either Russian interference, hacking or other shit they allege. Most of you were lied into Iraq wars on WMD's that never showed up.. How much that costed 2-3 trillion? Not to mention blood of Americans and Iraqis. 30M is chump change in the lying business. I trust nothing from .gov

Depending on your definition of wmd's hezbollah/isis later found deposits of gas missiles and a fascility capable of producing chemical weapons.

Not to mention the sovereignity of iraq was gone which allowed it to be invaded.

1) genocide of kurds
2) invading neighbouring country's and declarations of war
3) the housing of internationally regognized terorist groups
4) weapons of mass destruction

Don't forget iraq was invaded after saddam hussein utilized gas missiles on civilian outpost's which broke the treaty and violated international regulations.

Keep in mind, any one of the four reasons listed is enough to declare a nation no longer sovereign.

There was also paper evidence of iraq trading with china for balistic shells.(which china ended up not going true with since amerika invaded and showed interest in iraq)

The tragedy of Iraq is pulling back out and leaving the allies of Amerika behind to defend for themselves creating a brewing spot for anti-western sentiment. Both the democrats and republics sanctioned the invasion, it was only after one of the people running for office on the democrats side went full "anti-war" and started gathering votes that the democrats shifted gear and bassicaly put a knife in the back of the Amerikan soldiers in Iraq.

They bassicaly changed their attitude towards the Iraq war not because of international issue's and logic but because of ellections and trying to grab votes and forming an anti-war propaganda campaign. It's an insult to the people actually fighting in Iraq since they agreed to the invasion six months earlier.

Peace,

-Boem-

I like the way you think.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Mueller report exonerates Trump, say Americans who did not actually read the Mueller report

https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/people-who-havent-read-the-mueller-report-insist-it-exonerates-trump-2019-4

This is probably a direct consequence of the Mueller report saying, in black and white, that "it also does not exonerate him," where "it" is "this report" and "him" is "Trump." Kinda hard to actually read the report and not notice that.

However, the way that sentence begins is "Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime…" Because of this, it's kinda hard to actually read the report and come to that conclusion, either. This is borne out in the numbers, according to the very article you've linked...

"

22% of respondents believed the 448-page document vindicated President Donald Trump. About 33% of respondents believed the report implicated him.

"

Of the 398 respondents who later admitted they hadn't read it:
34% said it vindicated the president
21% said they were unsure
43% said it implicated him.

Therefore, after some quick maths, we can say that, among the 703 respondents who did not admit they didn't read the Mueller report, 15% said it exonerated Trump and 27% said it implicated him, while 57% of those respondents picked an answer other than those two options.

Seems to me that admitting to not reading the Mueller report vs claiming to have read at least some it makes one about 120% more likely to think it exonerates Trump (which is fake news) and about 60% more likely to say it implicates Trump (which is also fake news). In contrast, claiming to have read at least some vs admitting not to have read makes neutral answers (other than those two partian options) more than 150% more likely.

Speaking of fake news, that Business Insider article is deceptively written, seeming to tolerate the "Mueller report implicates Trump" position by refusing to call it out. A better headline would have been "Mueller report either exonerates or implicates Trump, say Americans who admit they haven't read it." The "admit" part is important, because I doubt very much that the quarter of those surveyed who said "I've read some but haven't finished it" are telling the truth. But even if it is trying to deceive, I shouldn't be able to do it well; it's own numbers, given an ounce of critical thinking, contradict its misleading implications.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Seems to me that admitting to not reading the Mueller report makes one about 50% more likely to think it exonerates Trump (which is fake news) AND about 33% more likely to say it implicates Trump (which is also fake news), relative to the overall population.

Your maths seems off or is it just me? Of those who admit not reading the report (398 correspondents) 50% more likely to feel Trump vindicated (34% vs 29? how is that at all like 50%? it's about 5/34 actually, without a calculator something like 17% more likely to think it vindicates Trump) AND (this means at the same time btw) 33% more likely to think it implicates Trump(43% vs 56%, this is indeed about a third in relative percentages).

I'm tired of hearing people's opinion about people's opinion about fake news.

Either it's newsworthy with no factual errors, or it's not.

The bigger issue is how Barr lied about the report and misrepresented it with his PR stunt press conference before the release of the Mueller report. That allowed Fox and others to spin the story for hours and imprint it as 'Trump is exonerated' in the minds of those who will never even pick up the Mueller report.

That's wholly dishonest, and he should be fired for not doing his job.

ALso fire that cow Sarah Sanders for lying about a billion times, this time proven with the Mueller report.

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Seems to me that admitting to not reading the Mueller report makes one about 50% more likely to think it exonerates Trump (which is fake news) AND about 33% more likely to say it implicates Trump (which is also fake news), relative to the overall population.

Your maths seems off or is it just me? Of those who admit not reading the report (398 correspondents) 50% more likely to feel Trump vindicated (34% vs 29? how is that at all like 50%? it's about 5/34 actually, without a calculator something like 17% more likely to think it vindicates Trump) AND (this means at the same time btw) 33% more likely to think it implicates Trump(43% vs 56%, this is indeed about a third in relative percentages).

34% is almost exactly 150% of 22%. But I rewrote that section anyway, to contrast admit not read vs claimed to have read, instead of contrasting admit not read vs general population.

"

rojimbo wrote:

I'm tired of hearing people's opinion about people's opinion about fake news.

Either it's newsworthy with no factual errors, or it's not.

The bigger issue is how Barr lied about the report and misrepresented it with his PR stunt press conference before the release of the Mueller report. That allowed Fox and others to spin the story for hours and imprint it as 'Trump is exonerated' in the minds of those who will never even pick up the Mueller report.

That's wholly dishonest, and he should be fired for not doing his job.

ALso fire that cow Sarah Sanders for lying about a billion times, this time proven with the Mueller report.

Unfortunately, it's all too predictable that once I point holes in the propaganda you enjoy consuming, that you'd respond emotionally and rant off instead of looking towards the truth implied by the actual data — actually reading the Mueller report drastically reduces both the opinion that it exonerates Trump AND the opinion that it implicates him.

I didn't watch the Barr press conference, and I didn't pay much heed to the media coverage prior to release (excepting the "when will it be made public" part). I didn't much care what a Presidential appointee or a CNN talking head had to say on the matter; I planned on reading it myself, later, and preferred not to further bias myself for when I did. So I don't know what they were saying during the Not-Reader shows that tell all the Not-Readers the content of the papers they're not going to read, before they can even be released so that the hosts of the program can not read them and continue their pre-established partisan narrative. Of course Barr was spinning it; of course it was, to some degree or another, bullshit. What else could it be, without delivering the goods?

Kinda makes me wonder why you were watching. Do you enjoy consuming propaganda, or are you more interested in meeting your own? Masochism, perhaps?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

34% is almost exactly 150% of 22%. But I rewrote that section anyway, to contrast admit vs claimed to have read, instead of contrasting admit vs general population.population.

You just picked two random numbers in the hopes it might vindicate your treatment (or mistreatment) of the underlying statistics. Your numbers are woefully off and contradict their own reported statistics:

Of the 398 respondents who later admitted they hadn't read it:
34% said it vindicated the president
21% said they were unsure
43% said it implicated him.

For comparison, among those who said they read at least part of the report:
29% said it vindicated the president
14% said they were unsure
56% said they believed it implicated him.

All that was said is all that can be said honestly. It is more likely to believe the Mueller report implicates TRump if you read at least a part of the report. It is less likely to believe the Mueller report implicates Trump if you did not read the report.

THat's it. If you want me to point out the numbers, see my previous post for the maths.

"

Unfortunately, it's all too predictable that once I point holes in the propaganda you enjoy consuming, that you'd respond emotionally and rant off instead of looking towards the truth implied by the actual data — actually reading the Mueller report drastically reduces both the opinion that it exonerates Trump AND the opinion that it implicates him.

Errr, how so? I'm reading it and it's pretty damn damning, as reported by MSM (it also exonerates them keep in mind over these past two years. Fake news my ass Trump)

"

I didn't watch the Barr press conference, and I didn't pay much heed to the media coverage prior to release (excepting the "when will it be made public" part). I didn't much care what a Presidential appointee or a CNN talking head had to say on the matter; I planned on reading it myself, later, and preferred not to further bias myself for when I did. So I don't know what they were saying during the Not-Reader shows that tell all the Not-Readers the content of the papers they're not going to read, before they can even be released so that the hosts of the program can not read them and continue their pre-established partisan narrative.

Kinda makes me wonder why you were watching. Do you enjoy consuming propaganda, or are you more interested in meeting your own?

Yet you quote the Barr press conference heavily edited and cut version of the Mueller report, instead of the actual even redacted Mueller report. I find that hilarious.

This is actually a good exercise everyone should do.

Re-read Barr's statement with full quotes from the Mueller report.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/read-bill-barr-infamous-letter-171107726.html?guccounter=1