Can't be a Jedi if you support Trump...?

I personally don't, but even if we do/did, does that make the other wrong by default. I mean vixen is sith, and I personally like the discussions that he is in because it's a different mindset, and as Jedi should we not strive to at least understand someone on a basic level? For change to happen, and understanding needs to be present imho. Hence why I like talking to Trump supps, Trump haters, etc IF they keep it civil and don't flail madly into incoherent arguments of ad hominem attacks of orange man bad or blind support without calling him out when needed.

Hilarious! So riled up about what we're told! I imagine this is how Christianity became so important...

Honestly, how many of you are educated in statecraft? Have the information necessary to make cogent decisions over millions of people's welfare? Realy expect that what is available to us outside of those upper echelons is enough to make a decision of truth and rightness?

No.


I don't blame any of you. If that is what is important, you have to make a decision. And what decision could you make but by what information is available to you?

I appreciate that you are playing the game and it is important to you. Just remember that your not the player, but a pawn. (Assuming none of you holds a position in national politics, that is)

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Yes , every where not only in America.

Since you're universally and chronically obtuse, allow me to rephrase: People are dying as a direct result of Trump's policies.
You know damn well what I meant.
[hr]
Also, let's take a moment and re-assess the opening question using an analogy:

• Jedi believe the sky is blue.
• Orange man says sky is green.
• You support orange man.
• By association, you support orange man's claim sky is green.
• You no longer believe sky is blue.
• ∴, you are no longer Jedi.

Deimos wrote: Didn't Mueller say that Russia-gate was false? Thats probably the one argument that erks me, mostly because it was three years of essentially wasted time, provided Mueller was telling the truth when he said it was false. And now the Dems used the same logic of Russia interference against Tulsi Gabbard, one of their own! That's the main thing I can't stand about the far left: they are effectively ostracizing the centrists which will inevitably go to the right by default if they don't see the left on their side. I'm not defending Trump, rather I'm explain why both sides just irritate me nowadays.

No, and let me apologize in advance if I'm over-explaining this because I consume a lot of news and I have a good idea how confusing all of this is. Mueller said he could not exonerate the president. There is a lot of legalese in the Mueller report. Essentially, what it says is that there are a lot of questionable contacts and things going on. Not to mention they could not interview the POTUS and people were actively obstructing justice. You don't need to obstruct justice for a non-existent crime. That's like me robbing a bank and then murdering the bank teller who is about to testify. Now you can find me guilty for murdering the teller but there's a chance I might now escape on the bank robbery if your other evidence isn't good enough.

Prosecutors do not have to take a case to trial. Often they use grand juries and see if they have enough to convict. It's kind of like an NBA player considering whether he can make a long distance shot or not. Maybe. Maybe not. If my name is Lebron the chances are more likely. The chance of success is basically what Mueller was debating in his report. Section 1, wasn't simply about whether or not the interference had happened. It was whether Trump actively participated in a conspiracy that resulted in Russia working on his behalf. Mueller couldn't find enough evidence to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that he did. He didn't find evidence to prove that he didn't either. The result was him saying, I could try to make this shot but I don't have a high degree of certainty its going in. And a defense attorney might have a good chance of blocking that shot. Again... this doesn't mean Trump is innocent. It just means his guilt couldn't be easily proven. And according to DOJ guidelines Mueller was not allowed to indict a sitting president. When asked if he would go after him after he got out of office the answer was yes; maybe not on the conspiracy (because the standard for proving it is VERY high) but definitely on the obstruction.

Again... you don't shoot the bank teller before she can testify and you don't delete the tapes if that wasn't you robbing the bank. Why would you commit a crime to cover up a crime you didn't commit? And because Mueller couldn't indict Trump, by a strange but legal twist of logic he wasn't even allowed to say Trump was guilty. Because you're innocent until proven guilty.

So it wasn't a waste. Trump just dodged the first bullet by engaging in obstruction (basically hiding the body) but Mueller did find several offenses that are 100% crimes that can be prosecuted. So yeah... he's pretty much guilty but we'd have to have a trial to actually get to that verdict. We can't just say guilty because the prosecutor is pretty sure he can win.

rugadd wrote: Hilarious! So riled up about what we're told! I imagine this is how Christianity became so important...

Honestly, how many of you are educated in statecraft? Have the information necessary to make cogent decisions over millions of people's welfare? Realy expect that what is available to us outside of those upper echelons is enough to make a decision of truth and rightness?

No.


I don't blame any of you. If that is what is important, you have to make a decision. And what decision could you make but by what information is available to you?

I appreciate that you are playing the game and it is important to you. Just remember that your not the player, but a pawn. (Assuming none of you holds a position in national politics, that is)

Sorry but when was Donald Trump educated in statecraft, where is that diploma/degree, and why does he suck at it so bad?

ANYONE can run to be president, as 2016 showed us. America simply rolled the dice on a corrupt businessman as a segment of America longed for the days when they had elected an actor.

You really think Donald Trump is president because Donald Trump decided to make that move by himself?

He is a puppet to entertain the crowds and he certainly has your apt attention.

steamboat28 wrote:

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Yes , every where not only in America.

Since you're universally and chronically obtuse, allow me to rephrase: People are dying as a direct result of Trump's policies.
You know damn well what I meant.
[hr]
Also, let's take a moment and re-assess the opening question using an analogy:

• Jedi believe the sky is blue.
• Orange man says sky is green.
• You support orange man.
• By association, you support orange man's claim sky is green.
• You no longer believe sky is blue.
• ∴, you are no longer Jedi.

Steam you know I love people, I would assume you can gather I do not like seeing people hurt, and I don't support Trump but I got to ask this when did "don't venomously oppose" become the equivalent of support?

That is a terrible terrible precedence to set, like literally leads to violence on levels equivalent to what you are charging Trump with, in fact it is unbelievably similar to his rhetoric in and of itself.

This is the danger of these discussions if we end up getting lost so deeply in the emotion of it that we do not see the consequences for our own words are we any better than what we oppose?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Deimos wrote: I personally don't, but even if we do/did, does that make the other wrong by default. I mean vixen is sith, and I personally like the discussions that he is in because it's a different mindset, and as Jedi should we not strive to at least understand someone on a basic level? For change to happen, and understanding needs to be present imho. Hence why I like talking to Trump supps, Trump haters, etc IF they keep it civil and don't flail madly into incoherent arguments of ad hominem attacks of orange man bad or blind support without calling him out when needed.

You're right. That's why I said I actually liked what VV was saying when using that sith mindset. I'm still gonna disagree of course, but I appreciate that perspective just like I enjoyed reading Darth Bane. But with that said, whether you're jedi or sith I don't want anyone being fooled into following, supporting, voting for, etc. a person who is trying to play all of us for fools. And when we're not looking he tells the whole story. "I grab em by the *****". And even when some of us are looking he's like "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any voters". Do you know how insulting that is to the American people? That's basically telling you that you're going to support him no matter what he does because we're too stupid not to. And that's why when he was reported to have said black people were too stupid to vote for him (according to Cohen), I believe he said that. When he said he wanted Jews to count his money I believe he said that because on camera he talked about how he didn't want poor people working in high office with him. He was basically saying, if you're not rich like him you're a loser. But people love it though. It's amazing.

Kobos wrote: when did "don't venomously oppose" become the equivalent of support?

When literal Nazis got involved.