Mueller Testimony: Live

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:43 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:I'm watching on CBS, Fox are Broadcasting yes but I would pour acid in my eyes before I watch anything on any Fox channel

I'm watching on Twitch because the chat is funny

https://www.twitch.tv/washingtonpost" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

toxic as ****. but also kinda funny.

Tricky Trevor · Post by **Tricky Trevor** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:59 pm

I haven’t followed this today but from earlier posts re: Muellers reticence. Is there a possibility he is holding stuff back for a future trial so as not to clue up Drumpf?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:01 pm

Tricky Trevor wrote:I haven’t followed this today but from earlier posts re: Muellers reticence. Is there a possibility he is holding stuff back for a future trial so as not to clue up Drumpf?

I doubt it. He's sticking to the contents of his report. Trump already has that, assuming someone's read it to him by now.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:13 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I doubt they're even watching. They're just waiting for Trump or Fox to tell them what to think. Is Fox even broadcasting it? I read they weren't planning to.

Yes Fox is broadcasting it. Some guest who is often on MSNBC made up a tweet saying that Fox was not and a lot of people just ran with as if it were true. Confirmation bias and all that.

She later claimed it was 'sarcasm and deleted her tweet'.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:18 pm

Elbarad wrote:Yes Fox is broadcasting it. Some guest who is often on MSNBC made up a tweet saying that Fox was not and a lot of people just ran with as if it were true. Confirmation bias and all that.

She later claimed it was 'sarcasm and deleted her tweet'.

Who?

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:20 pm

Tricky Trevor wrote:I haven’t followed this today but from earlier posts re: Muellers reticence. Is there a possibility he is holding stuff back for a future trial so as not to clue up Drumpf?

he is being very precise with what he says

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:24 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Who?

Joyce Vance. Whoever that is.

Here's a link, but beware, it's from Fox.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-con ... -testimony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:33 pm

Elbarad wrote:Joyce Vance. Whoever that is.

Here's a link, but beware, it's from Fox.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-con ... -testimony" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep. Quite the misstep. Whomever i read it from probably read it from her, or from sourcing that could be traced to that tweet.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:39 pm

Bill Maher
‏
Verified account

@billmaher
Following Following @billmaher
More
If this Mueller testimony was supposed to be “the movie”, it’s a Terrence Malick movie. Democrats are a political party that does not know how to do politics.

seems to be going well.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:42 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:seems to be going well.

He's right. Democrats are **** at politics. But they're good on substance, and on that score today they delivered.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 9:07 pm

Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are holding a presser in about 40 minutes to explain why they're (probably) not going to impeach this clearly corrupt, treasonous prick.

At least Puerto Rican legislators have some balls to stand up for what's right.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/pue ... d_nn_fb_ma" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 10:49 pm

Still waiting for the three musketeers to have their press conference (more like stooges amirite?) But they've at least for their prop placard set up maybe it's imminent. Maybe, just maybe, they're going to announce hearings. But i doubt it.

Oh, it's beginning.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?463006-1/ ... hairs&live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:17 pm

It's done. Pelosi basically said that if the President keeps obstructing congressional oversight then the House will move forward with impeachment.

Better than I expected.

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:41 pm

Congratulations IT, you have just wasted a day of your life.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:46 pm

FCBurnley wrote:Congratulations IT, you have just wasted a day of your life.

No i didn't.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:24 am

Unless Trump wins reelection I predict the House will never approve impeachment proceedings against Trump. And if he does win reelection Dems won't be in the majority so won't be able to pass it.

There's just too much for them to lose in purple districts to pass a vote when the Senate won't convict.

Whether you think he deserves it or not, that's my read on the politics of the matter.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:26 am

Elbarad wrote:Unless Trump wins reelection I predict the House will never approve impeachment proceedings against Trump. And if he does win reelection Dems won't be in the majority so won't be able to pass it.

There's just too much for them to lose in purple districts to pass a vote when the Senate won't convict.

Whether you think he deserves it or not, that's my read on the politics of the matter.

He won't win re-election. There's a reason Republicans are blocking election security bills. It's because they know they need foreign interference to keep power. They have long since abandoned the idea that they value democracy, from allowing dark foreign money to pollute their elections thanks to the Citizens United ruling, to trying to make it harder to vote if you're likely to be a Democratic voter via voter ID laws/closing polling stations/insanely long waiting times to vote, to rigging the House of Representatives composition in your favour via gerrymandering, and now to inviting foreign election interference by refusing to fund efforts to protect them.

And they have to do all this because if they don't then they would have to change their views to appeal to a liberalising and more diverse population. Their voters are old and dying and they're not being replaced by enough youngsters because young people tend to find their politics abhorrent.

But, for a president who's boasting how amazing the economy is (thanks to Obama since Trump's barely touched ti except with tariffs which has harmed it) his polling numbers ******* suuuuuck. If the economy was booming like he says it is then his approval should in the high 50s maybe the 60s. But they're in the low 40s, because he's ****, his policies are ****, and people can see through his ****. And when the economy collapses because the companies have bought back all the stocks they can, and there are no more taxes to cut, and the deficit is well above $2 trillion/year, and people are losing their homes and jobs left and right, then those low-mid 40s will be mid-20s like Bush Jr.'s rating when the economy collapsed in 2008. And the only way Russian influence is going to allow him to stay in power with a ~25% approval rating is if their influence literally and obviously breaks the electoral systems, giving Trump an excuse to unconstitutionally postpone the election (and even then Republicans might not stand for that, but who knows).

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:17 am

You're entitled to your opinion IT. Everyone is... But you know... people thought he'd never win the nomination, people thought Hillary was a shoe-in. How'd that turn out? Feel free to list as many reasons for his victory as you'd like. The facts remain neither Jeb Bush nor Hillary is in the White House and Trump is. He could win again. If 95% of people in New York and California hate him, it makes the poll numbers look lopsided, but if only 51% of the people in each of the other states prefer him to whichever far left candidate wins the Democrat nomination, he wins in an electoral landslide. And right now these candidates for the nomination are in a race to see who can go further left the fastest. Trying to win votes their party as a whole already has. It's not just me who says this, the NY Times had an article recently that said the same thing. Are they in his pocket now?

Anyway, I stand by my prediction he won't face impeachment hearings which was the point of my original post, which you've ignored to go on a rant listing all of MSNBC's talking points.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:31 am

Elbarad wrote:You're entitled to your opinion IT. Everyone is... But you know... people thought he'd never win the nomination, people thought Hillary was a shoe-in. How'd that turn out? Feel free to list as many reasons for his victory as you'd like. The facts remain neither Jeb Bush nor Hillary is in the White House and Trump is. He could win again. If 95% of people in New York and California hate him, it makes the poll numbers look lopsided, but if only 51% of the people in each of the other states prefer him to whichever far left candidate wins the Democrat nomination, he wins in an electoral landslide. And right now these candidates for the nomination are in a race to see who can go further left the fastest. Trying to win votes their party as a whole already has. It's not just me who says this, the NY Times had an article recently that said the same thing. Are they in his pocket now?

Anyway, I stand by my prediction he won't face impeachment hearings which was the point of my original post, which you've ignored to go on a rant listing all of MSNBC's talking points.

Oh. OK. So you decided to come back with a pointlessly antagonistic reply and decided to call a post I spent good time thinking about and writing for you, a "rant". Well, FU then.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:34 am

And you still haven't answered my original post, and cursed at me as well.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:41 am

Elbarad wrote:And you still haven't answered my original post, and cursed at me as well.

There were no questions in that post. And i wouldn't waste your time asking any of me because i'm no longer inclined to waste any time trying to have a conversation with you.

Elbarad · Post by **Elbarad** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:45 am

No, but there was a point which you've continued to ignore. Anyway, take care, going to get some sleep.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:55 am

Elbarad wrote:No, but there was a point which you've continued to ignore. Anyway, take care, going to get some sleep.

I didn't need to address is since i explained why i don't see him winning a second term. If he does then impeachment won't matter, so there was **** all reason for me to directly address it. Jesus Christ. All i did was explain my opinion, and you kicked off and got butthurt about nothing at all.

Learn to respect the time people put into their posts. There was **** all antagonistic or angry about my post and you called it a "rant". There was **** all about my post that wasn't my own opinion and you called it all "MSNBC talking points". I hope your sleep is as **** as you've been in this exchange of opinions.

AndyClaret · Post by **AndyClaret** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:08 am

Gone by Christmas ?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:27 am

I genuinely fear for your well being turtle when he gets that second term

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:52 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:
Learn to respect the time people put into their posts. There was **** all antagonistic or angry about my post and you called it a "rant". There was **** all about my post that wasn't my own opinion and you called it all "MSNBC talking points". I hope your sleep is as **** as you've been in this exchange of opinions.

Comedy value of the highest order. IT having a rant about not having a rant and not respecting a post despite complaining about the very same thing.

You sir are the gift that keeps on giving.

To make it a full house we just need Trump to secure a second term and Boris to pull through by the 31st Oct with no deal.

MG70 · Post by **MG70** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 7:17 am

And i wouldn't waste your time asking any of me because i'm no longer inclined to waste any time trying to have a conversation with you.

You’d make a good democrat IT.

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:16 pm

I actually felt sorry for Robert Mueller yesterday. He was clearly just the front man and had no clue what was going on. But I guess he got paid a few million so losing his reputation was probably worth it. The real investigations by Horowitz and Barr start now.

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:23 pm

If you want to know the true effect of yesterday take a look at the 2020 election betting on Oddschecker. Trump odds to win just shortened from 33/5 to 20/21.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:33 pm

For the rest of you, who live in the real world. The quote below is untrue. Trump's odds didn't shorten from 33/5 (7.6 in decimal odds) to 20/21 (1.95)

He probably read it on Facebook or something and uncritically believed and spread it.

FCBurnley wrote:If you want to know the true effect of yesterday take a look at the 2020 election betting on Oddschecker. Trump odds to win just shortened from 33/5 to 20/21.

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:22 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:For the rest of you, who live in the real world. The quote below is untrue. Trump's odds didn't shorten from 33/5 (7.6 in decimal odds) to 20/21 (1.95)

He probably read it on Facebook or something and uncritically believed and spread it.

You are right and wrong. The 33/5 odds referred to are for Harris to win and not Trumps previous odds. However Trumps odds of winning have shortened( shown in blue) following yesterdays debacle. Harris`s odds of winning have gone out to 33/5 (shown in pink). Obviously maths is not your strong point if you think 33/5 equates to 7.6/1

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:26 pm

FCBurnley wrote:You are right and wrong. The 33/5 odds referred to are for Harris to win and not Trumps previous odds. However Trumps odds of winning have shortened( shown in blue) following yesterdays debacle. Harris`s odds of winning have gone out to 33/5 (shown in pink). Obviously maths is not your strong point if you think 33/5 equates to 7.6/1

Obviously maths is not your strong point if you think 7.6 in decimal odds is 7.6/1

Maybe check your facts before being smug and wrong at the same time.

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:31 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Obviously maths is not your strong point if you think 7.6 in decimal odds is 7.6/1

Maybe check your facts before being smug and wrong at the same time.

I did and explained my mistake unlike you who made a childish mathematical error.

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:31 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:42 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I genuinely fear for your well being turtle when he gets that second term

I fear for the rest of us on here because he's spent the last few years droning on that Trump wouldn't win, then wouldn't finish the first year, then he'd get found out to be in collision with the Russians, would get chucked out of office etc.

If Trump gets a second term I'm not sure this place could cope with Turtle droning on for another 4 years...

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:45 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I fear for the rest of us on here because he's spent the last few years droning on that Trump wouldn't win, then wouldn't finish the first year, then he'd get found out to be in collision with the Russians, would get chucked out of office etc.

If Trump gets a second term I'm not sure this place could cope with Turtle droning on for another 4 years...

He will just move from Trump to Boris.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:48 pm

FCBurnley wrote:He will just move from Trump to Boris.

Boris or Scottish independence once Brexit happens.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:11 pm

FCBurnley wrote:I did and explained my mistake unlike you who made a childish mathematical error.

fractional odds of 33/5 equals decimal odds of 7.6

This isn't a debatable fact. It's ******* maths.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:15 pm

Leisure wrote:6.6

No. 7.6

Do you not know how decimal odds work?

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:17 pm

And yet despite his dislike of Trump(which he's perfectly entitled to in a democracy),he couldn't protest when the opportunity arose.

Credit to those people who did bother to exercise their lawful right to peacefully protest,and didn't hide behind a keyboard.

BTW i'm ambivalent towards Trump or whichever nominee the Democrats propose,however if the Dems do go down the ultra-left route,they're playing right into Trump's hands in 2020,that's exactly what wants,so he can cast them as socialists,which sadly in American politics is never going to win elections.

Look at Bernie Sanders in 2016 he mobilised a good base,raised lots of donations,but when push came to shove he couldn't get over the line,and that was just in the Democrat primaries,let alone the rest of the electorate.

Rick_Muller · Post by **Rick_Muller** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:22 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. 7.6

Do you not know how decimal odds work?

to be fair, I'm not a gambling man and I had to look it up - it is quite straightforward once you know.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:22 pm

tiger76 wrote:And yet despite his dislike of Trump(which he's perfectly entitled to in a democracy),he couldn't protest when the opportunity arose.

Credit to those people who did bother to exercise their lawful right to peacefully protest,and didn't hide behind a keyboard.

BTW i'm ambivalent towards Trump or whichever nominee the Democrats propose,however if the Dems do go down the ultra-left route,they're playing right into Trump's hands in 2020,that's exactly what wants,so he can cast them as socialists,which sadly in American politics is never going to win elections.

Look at Bernie Sanders in 2016 he mobilised a good base,raised lots of donations,but when push came to shove he couldn't get over the line,and that was just in the Democrat primaries,let alone the rest of the electorate.

You're playing into the Republican's hands by thinking that there is a single "ultra-left" candidate running for the Democratic nomination.

tiger76 · Post by **tiger76** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:You're playing into the Republican's hands by thinking that there is a single "ultra-left" candidate running for the Democratic nomination.

What you and i think doesn't matter,would i find most of the Democratic candidates hard-left probably not,but a lot of American voters will,look how hard it was for Obama to introduce modest healthcare reforms,this is the type of politics that anyone standing for the Dems will have to face i'm afraid.

Now it's possible with the younger generations who are more radical in their thinking that in a decade or so American society will embrace a more left-wing approach,but it's not going to happen overnight,

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:44 pm

Vino blanco wrote:Please, don't tell us what is going on, because I am recording the whole testimony live so I can watch it in comfort later.

He dies in the end.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:49 pm

tiger76 wrote:What you and i think doesn't matter,would i find most of the Democratic candidates hard-left probably not,but a lot of American voters will,look how hard it was for Obama to introduce modest healthcare reforms,this is the type of politics that anyone standing for the Dems will have to face i'm afraid.

Now it's possible with the younger generations who are more radical in their thinking that in a decade or so American society will embrace a more left-wing approach,but it's not going to happen overnight,

The only reason it was hard for Obama was because when he became president the Republicans made it a new rule that anything he wanted to get done required 60 votes in the Senate. They filibustered everything. They filibustered so much that they even started filibustering their own bills if Obama said he supported it.

There is majority support for single-payer healthcare in America, which is what the so-called "ultra-left" is proposing. And it's not even close. This poll shows a 65% in favour against 27% against.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/ ... thcare.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Leisure · Post by **Leisure** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:04 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. 7.6

Do you not know how decimal odds work?

Yes I do.

6.6/1
13.2/2
19.8./3
26.4/4
33/5

7.6/1
15.2/2
22.8/3
30.4/4
38/5

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:13 pm

Leisure wrote:Yes I do.

6.6/1
13.2/2
19.8./3
26.4/4
33/5

7.6/1
15.2/2
22.8/3
30.4/4
38/5

You're close, but still wrong.

Decimal odds include the stake already. So at 33/5 when you place a £5 bet you would see a £38 return (£33 profit and your £5 stake) Agreed?

To convert 33/5 into a decimal price you first add together the numerator (33) and the denominator (5) and then divide it by the denominator (5).

So, (33+5)/5 = 38/5 = 7.6

The way you know this is correct is because when you multiply your stake by a decimal price, whatever the result is what your total return would be.

7.6 * 5 = 38

The decimal odds of 33/5 are therefore 7.6

You can prove this by going to any online bookmakers and switching from fractional odds ro decimal odds, and carrying out the exact proceedure i describe here.
(Numerator + Denominator) / Denominator = Decimal Odds

Or, more simply, (Profit + Stake) / Stake = Decimal Odds

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:16 pm

Leisure wrote:Yes I do.

6.6/1
13.2/2
19.8./3
26.4/4
33/5

7.6/1
15.2/2
22.8/3
30.4/4
38/5

Decimal odds don’t work like fractional odds, Leisure. Fractional odds don’t include your stake in your “winnings”. 6.6/1 is 7.6 in decimal.

FCBurnley · Post by **FCBurnley** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:20 pm

Greenmile wrote:Decimal odds don’t work like fractional odds, Leisure. Fractional odds don’t include your stake in your “winnings”. 6.6/1 is 7.6 in decimal.

So if my stake is 2.50 what are the decimal odds ?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 5:21 pm

FCBurnley wrote:So if my stake is 2.50 what are the decimal odds ?

Your question doesn’t make sense. The odds aren’t affected by the stake (unless the stake is big enough to affect the betting market).