Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen? In one passage, you show zero acknowledgement of the absence of control individuals have on the actions of others and have thus asserted what what will or won't happen based on a non-existential state of being (that of having control over the behavior of whatever quantity of individuals it takes to impeach and "convict" a POTUS -- first quote below, posted at 12:42 pm today) and then, in less than an hour, post the perfectly rational response you did regarding the investigation (second quote below, posted at 1:29 pm today), which very clearly and implicitly acknowledges the unpredictability associated with ?So, how did that work out for Nixon?Yes, as far as I know he can absolutely fire him. I believe Nixon did years ago when he was being investigated.
It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
I'm asking because the thought processes (analysis) that lead to either conclusive assertion are unmistakable (provided one truly meant both remarks):It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
FWIW, though I realize your remark had nothing to do with economics, I've posted the video below because the concept of normative and positive statements is applicable to any topic.
- "It won't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a positive statement, and nobody can today make that statement and, but for the Moirai's will, be assured of having done so accurately. (Were you to have written something to the effect of "...probably won't...," I wouldn't have anything to say about it, other perhaps than to say I agree and click the "agree" rating on the post that contained the statement. Alternatively, it's possible that had you written more, context would have made clear that that your "won't work" diction is just a typo of sorts.)
- "It shouldn't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a normative statement, and anybody can accurately make it because it attests to what the writer/speaker believes should (past tense of "shall") in the future happen, had rather happen, not what in fact will in the future happen.
Am I criticizing your grammar or diction? No, I'm asking for input. I'm not criticizing your grammar/diction because I believe you're fluent enough in English that you know the denotative difference between "won't" and "shouldn't;" thus I think that what you wrote accurately expresses your analysis of and conclusion on the matter about which you wrote. I think that because it's disrespectful to presume a writer isn't literate enough to aptly and accurately express the ideas in their own mind. I realize your diction may, however, have resulted from a mistake, and that is why I asked the question with which I opened this post; I too have made inapt word choices.
Not sure I am grasping all you are saying. But what I mean is that it will not derail the continuation of the investigation. And I have NO idea if he is guilty or innocent, but I am willing to let it play out. Does that make it any clearer or an I not understanding what your question is?
The words "I don't know..." explicitly indicate an awareness of uncertainty. The words "it won't work..." explicitly indicate complete certainty for it's an alternative way to say "it is impossible for 'such and such' to work."Not sure I am grasping all you are saying.
The point of my post was to say that I don't understand how the same mind that in writing...
...clearly recognizes the uncertainty of outcomes associated with the "Russia" investigation also wrote...I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
...which is a statement that acknowledges no uncertainty of outcomes related to what actions Congress may take if Trump acts to fire Mueller. Just as we do not know what will be the outcome of the "Russia" investigation, we don't know that Congress will impeach/"convict" Trump should he order that Mueller be fired.It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
Seeing in one remark the capacity to recognize when a set of circumstances include a measure of uncertainty of outcomes, and seeing in the other remark that you tacitly deny the existence of any measure of uncertainty of outcomes with regard to a set of circumstances that clearly can have up to 535 sources of uncertainty, I was curious to learn how that happens in one person's mind, in this instance yours. That is why I asked the questions I did:
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen?
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen? In one passage, you show zero acknowledgement of the absence of control individuals have on the actions of others and have thus asserted what what will or won't happen based on a non-existential state of being (that of having control over the behavior of whatever quantity of individuals it takes to impeach and "convict" a POTUS -- first quote below, posted at 12:42 pm today) and then, in less than an hour, post the perfectly rational response you did regarding the investigation (second quote below, posted at 1:29 pm today), which very clearly and implicitly acknowledges the unpredictability associated with ?So, how did that work out for Nixon?
It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
I'm asking because the thought processes (analysis) that lead to either conclusive assertion are unmistakable (provided one truly meant both remarks):It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
FWIW, though I realize your remark had nothing to do with economics, I've posted the video below because the concept of normative and positive statements is applicable to any topic.
- "It won't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a positive statement, and nobody can today make that statement and, but for the Moirai's will, be assured of having done so accurately. (Were you to have written something to the effect of "...probably won't...," I wouldn't have anything to say about it, other perhaps than to say I agree and click the "agree" rating on the post that contained the statement. Alternatively, it's possible that had you written more, context would have made clear that that your "won't work" diction is just a typo of sorts.)
- "It shouldn't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a normative statement, and anybody can accurately make it because it attests to what the writer/speaker believes should (past tense of "shall") in the future happen, had rather happen, not what in fact will in the future happen.
Am I criticizing your grammar or diction? No, I'm asking for input. I'm not criticizing your grammar/diction because I believe you're fluent enough in English that you know the denotative difference between "won't" and "shouldn't;" thus I think that what you wrote accurately expresses your analysis of and conclusion on the matter about which you wrote. I think that because it's disrespectful to presume a writer isn't literate enough to aptly and accurately express the ideas in their own mind. I realize your diction may, however, have resulted from a mistake, and that is why I asked the question with which I opened this post; I too have made inapt word choices.
Not sure I am grasping all you are saying. But what I mean is that it will not derail the continuation of the investigation. And I have NO idea if he is guilty or innocent, but I am willing to let it play out. Does that make it any clearer or an I not understanding what your question is?
The words "I don't know..." explicitly indicate an awareness of uncertainty. The words "it won't work..." explicitly indicate complete certainty for it's an alternative way to say "it is impossible for 'such and such' to work."Not sure I am grasping all you are saying.
The point of my post was to say that I don't understand how the same mind that in writing...
...clearly recognizes the uncertainty of outcomes associated with the "Russia" investigation also wrote...I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
...which is a statement that acknowledges no uncertainty of outcomes related to what actions Congress may take if Trump acts to fire Mueller. Just as we do not know what will be the outcome of the "Russia" investigation, we don't know that Congress will impeach/"convict" Trump should he order that Mueller be fired.It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
Seeing in one remark the capacity to recognize when a set of circumstances include a measure of uncertainty of outcomes, and seeing in the other remark that you tacitly deny the existence of any measure of uncertainty of outcomes with regard to a set of circumstances that clearly can have up to 535 sources of uncertainty, I was curious to learn how that happens in one person's mind, in this instance yours. That is why I asked the questions I did:
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen?
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
As for the other I just want the investigation to play out. I have no idea on guilt or innocence but I am patient enough to let it play.
TY for the clarification.I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen? In one passage, you show zero acknowledgement of the absence of control individuals have on the actions of others and have thus asserted what what will or won't happen based on a non-existential state of being (that of having control over the behavior of whatever quantity of individuals it takes to impeach and "convict" a POTUS -- first quote below, posted at 12:42 pm today) and then, in less than an hour, post the perfectly rational response you did regarding the investigation (second quote below, posted at 1:29 pm today), which very clearly and implicitly acknowledges the unpredictability associated with ?It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
I'm asking because the thought processes (analysis) that lead to either conclusive assertion are unmistakable (provided one truly meant both remarks):It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
FWIW, though I realize your remark had nothing to do with economics, I've posted the video below because the concept of normative and positive statements is applicable to any topic.
- "It won't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a positive statement, and nobody can today make that statement and, but for the Moirai's will, be assured of having done so accurately. (Were you to have written something to the effect of "...probably won't...," I wouldn't have anything to say about it, other perhaps than to say I agree and click the "agree" rating on the post that contained the statement. Alternatively, it's possible that had you written more, context would have made clear that that your "won't work" diction is just a typo of sorts.)
- "It shouldn't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a normative statement, and anybody can accurately make it because it attests to what the writer/speaker believes should (past tense of "shall") in the future happen, had rather happen, not what in fact will in the future happen.
Am I criticizing your grammar or diction? No, I'm asking for input. I'm not criticizing your grammar/diction because I believe you're fluent enough in English that you know the denotative difference between "won't" and "shouldn't;" thus I think that what you wrote accurately expresses your analysis of and conclusion on the matter about which you wrote. I think that because it's disrespectful to presume a writer isn't literate enough to aptly and accurately express the ideas in their own mind. I realize your diction may, however, have resulted from a mistake, and that is why I asked the question with which I opened this post; I too have made inapt word choices.
Not sure I am grasping all you are saying. But what I mean is that it will not derail the continuation of the investigation. And I have NO idea if he is guilty or innocent, but I am willing to let it play out. Does that make it any clearer or an I not understanding what your question is?
The words "I don't know..." explicitly indicate an awareness of uncertainty. The words "it won't work..." explicitly indicate complete certainty for it's an alternative way to say "it is impossible for 'such and such' to work."Not sure I am grasping all you are saying.
The point of my post was to say that I don't understand how the same mind that in writing...
...clearly recognizes the uncertainty of outcomes associated with the "Russia" investigation also wrote...I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
...which is a statement that acknowledges no uncertainty of outcomes related to what actions Congress may take if Trump acts to fire Mueller. Just as we do not know what will be the outcome of the "Russia" investigation, we don't know that Congress will impeach/"convict" Trump should he order that Mueller be fired.It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
Seeing in one remark the capacity to recognize when a set of circumstances include a measure of uncertainty of outcomes, and seeing in the other remark that you tacitly deny the existence of any measure of uncertainty of outcomes with regard to a set of circumstances that clearly can have up to 535 sources of uncertainty, I was curious to learn how that happens in one person's mind, in this instance yours. That is why I asked the questions I did:
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen?
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
As for the other I just want the investigation to play out. I have no idea on guilt or innocence but I am patient enough to let it play.
TY for the clarification.I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
Guilty of what?So, how did that work out for Nixon?
It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
Investigation?
Shit, Torquemada is going after 12 year old SEC violations.
This is a witch hunt. It's all it ever was. Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has fount Trump guilty.
Now he is desperately searching for what it is Trump is guilty of.
He does not have the power to find him guilty. You're letting your bias show.
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen? In one passage, you show zero acknowledgement of the absence of control individuals have on the actions of others and have thus asserted what what will or won't happen based on a non-existential state of being (that of having control over the behavior of whatever quantity of individuals it takes to impeach and "convict" a POTUS -- first quote below, posted at 12:42 pm today) and then, in less than an hour, post the perfectly rational response you did regarding the investigation (second quote below, posted at 1:29 pm today), which very clearly and implicitly acknowledges the unpredictability associated with ?
I'm asking because the thought processes (analysis) that lead to either conclusive assertion are unmistakable (provided one truly meant both remarks):
FWIW, though I realize your remark had nothing to do with economics, I've posted the video below because the concept of normative and positive statements is applicable to any topic.
- "It won't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a positive statement, and nobody can today make that statement and, but for the Moirai's will, be assured of having done so accurately. (Were you to have written something to the effect of "...probably won't...," I wouldn't have anything to say about it, other perhaps than to say I agree and click the "agree" rating on the post that contained the statement. Alternatively, it's possible that had you written more, context would have made clear that that your "won't work" diction is just a typo of sorts.)
- "It shouldn't work this time either if he is indeed guilty." --> This is a normative statement, and anybody can accurately make it because it attests to what the writer/speaker believes should (past tense of "shall") in the future happen, had rather happen, not what in fact will in the future happen.
Am I criticizing your grammar or diction? No, I'm asking for input. I'm not criticizing your grammar/diction because I believe you're fluent enough in English that you know the denotative difference between "won't" and "shouldn't;" thus I think that what you wrote accurately expresses your analysis of and conclusion on the matter about which you wrote. I think that because it's disrespectful to presume a writer isn't literate enough to aptly and accurately express the ideas in their own mind. I realize your diction may, however, have resulted from a mistake, and that is why I asked the question with which I opened this post; I too have made inapt word choices.
Not sure I am grasping all you are saying. But what I mean is that it will not derail the continuation of the investigation. And I have NO idea if he is guilty or innocent, but I am willing to let it play out. Does that make it any clearer or an I not understanding what your question is?
The words "I don't know..." explicitly indicate an awareness of uncertainty. The words "it won't work..." explicitly indicate complete certainty for it's an alternative way to say "it is impossible for 'such and such' to work."Not sure I am grasping all you are saying.
The point of my post was to say that I don't understand how the same mind that in writing...
...clearly recognizes the uncertainty of outcomes associated with the "Russia" investigation also wrote...I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
...which is a statement that acknowledges no uncertainty of outcomes related to what actions Congress may take if Trump acts to fire Mueller. Just as we do not know what will be the outcome of the "Russia" investigation, we don't know that Congress will impeach/"convict" Trump should he order that Mueller be fired.It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
Seeing in one remark the capacity to recognize when a set of circumstances include a measure of uncertainty of outcomes, and seeing in the other remark that you tacitly deny the existence of any measure of uncertainty of outcomes with regard to a set of circumstances that clearly can have up to 535 sources of uncertainty, I was curious to learn how that happens in one person's mind, in this instance yours. That is why I asked the questions I did:
Aldo Raine, do you truly think/believe and mean both of the emboldened statements I've below quoted? If so, how does that happen?
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
As for the other I just want the investigation to play out. I have no idea on guilt or innocence but I am patient enough to let it play.
TY for the clarification.I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
You bet sorry for be so muddy!
You're a partisan hack who's not worth talking to. Your head is in the sand.[
trump supporter are the ONLY traitors in this country, asshole. You're the only ones afraid of getting to the truth.
Trump won the presidency. You tried to stage a coup - that is treason.
If the Russians DID interfere with our elections, we have to know it. What are you afraid of? Do you think the dooshbag you love will be found to have stolen the election?
Don't be afraid of the truth, little one. The big bad Truth won't hurt you. But your new Jesus wannabe, trump, could very likely give you a big bad STD. He's a sleazy Pig, you know.
We DO know it, Hillary paid Russia to interfere with our election, as did the FBI.
Funny though, Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada seems to be more interested in 12 year old SEC violations.
Almost is if he's a corrupt hack running a witch hunt or Stalinist purge...
The truth WILL come out, whether you and other trump lovers like it, or not.
Why are you people so fucking afraid of the truth...?
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
As for the other I just want the investigation to play out. I have no idea on guilt or innocence but I am patient enough to let it play.
What happened to this thing that was supposed to be released by Republicans that was 'worse than Watergate, you'll shit your pants when you read it, it is abuse of power worse than Palpatine could conceive of'. I saw a blurb about it how the idiot Republican that claimed this huge bullshit then recanted the day before it was to be released? Was anything released? Did anyone care? Have Republicans cleaned this, among the dozens, of eggs off their face yet?
And as far as Lying Donald, even his own zombies know he's done.
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
.
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
.
It's all about the intention, not the outcome. If someone pours gasoline in a building, and then lights it with a match, but the fire later goes out, they still charge him with trying to burn down the building, whether he succeeded or not
As goes obstruction of justice and other crimes having mens rea as part of a prosecutor's burden of proof, yes.It's all about the intention, not the outcome.
"I’ve now spoken to about a dozen retired FBI and DOJ people who knew or worked with #Mueller, and not one, not a single one, had anything good to say about him. “Petty and thin skinned” was a recurring theme." - Wacky Dan Bongino
As goes obstruction of justice and other crimes having mens rea as part of a prosecutor's burden of proof, yes.It's all about the intention, not the outcome.
Guilty of what?It didn't, and it won't work this time either. If he is indeed guilty.
I do not know, that is why they call it an investigation. He may very well be exonerated, let it play out and see.
Investigation?
Shit, Torquemada is going after 12 year old SEC violations.
This is a witch hunt. It's all it ever was. Grand Inquisitor Mewler-Torquemada has fount Trump guilty.
Now he is desperately searching for what it is Trump is guilty of.
He does not have the power to find him guilty. You're letting your bias show.
The Inquisition has found Trump guilty, they are now trying to determine what he is guilty of.
You're letting your ignorance show.
While I have no foundation for challenging Bongino's judgment when he's applying to specific Secret Service matters, there's plenty rational basis for doubting his judgment in a broader sense."I’ve now spoken to about a dozen retired FBI and DOJ people who knew or worked with #Mueller, and not one, not a single one, had anything good to say about him. “Petty and thin skinned” was a recurring theme." - Wacky Dan Bongino
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
.
It's all about the intention, not the outcome. If someone pours gasoline in a building, and then lights it with a match, but the fire later goes out, they still charge him with trying to burn down the building, whether he succeeded or not
I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
As for the other I just want the investigation to play out. I have no idea on guilt or innocence but I am patient enough to let it play.
That was a VERY different situation. First off, it was pre-Clinton. We now know that the democrats will circle the wagons regardless of what a president has done, party above all. If republicans had circled the wagons around Nixon even the Stalinist press would have failed in their attacks. Secondly Nixon feared the little Goebbels of the press, Trump does not. Huckaby- Sanders tears this lying little worms to shreds on a daily basis.
Third, Trump didn't fire the Grand Inquisitor, and his attorney never threatened to quit, the NY Times is just lying in hopes of distracting from the looming FISA memo or to detract from the latest corruption by the FBI.
Free Beacon Reporter: Trump Wanting To Fire Mueller Story Aimed To Divert Attention Away From FBI Texts
He actually has to do someting, moron, not just think about it. I can think about murdering someone all day long, and even tell someone "I'd like to kill that guy," but until I take some concrete steps, I haven't broken any laws.I am saying firing the special council did not stop the Nixon investigation. I do not believe firing RM will stop this investigation.
.
It's all about the intention, not the outcome. If someone pours gasoline in a building, and then lights it with a match, but the fire later goes out, they still charge him with trying to burn down the building, whether he succeeded or not
So? You can't charge a guy with murder if he didn't actually kill anyone.As goes obstruction of justice and other crimes having mens rea as part of a prosecutor's burden of proof, yes.It's all about the intention, not the outcome.
There was an interesting episode of Law and Order, where a hit man shot a guy in bed. So they were going to charge him with murder. But the coroner's autopsy found that the guy died of a heart attack hours before the guy shot him, so they couldn't charge him with murdering somebody who was already dead.
But under New York law, they charged him with attempted 1st degree murder, which carries the same penalty as 1st degree murder
