Trumps legal team appears to be operating partly in the dark

TommyLucchese · 2018-09-18T15:31:06.337Z

Keep padding that post count.

peek-a-boo · 2018-09-18T15:31:41.686Z

TommyLucchese:

Keep padding that post count

Right back at you.

dantes · 2018-09-18T15:33:48.094Z

It’s okay. I have close friends who happen to be monkeys.

ohknow35 · 2018-09-18T15:47:28.559Z

LOL! new york times…

NebraskaFootball · 2018-09-18T15:47:57.600Z

peek-a-boo:

Only amongst Trump-haters. How many more times are the Trump-haters going to continue to recite that tired old meme? It might play well with the DEM base, but is a turn off to those who voted for Trump.

Not just among Trump-haters. But also among people working closely with him, both current and former employees. Of both his time in office and his time with the Trump Organization. Also among biographers who have spent countless hours with the man. The consistent theme from everyone who has had long, direct access to Trump is that he is a moron. It extends well past those who just oppose the man.

peek-a-boo · 2018-09-18T15:52:06.792Z

NebraskaFootball:

Not just among Trump-haters. But also among people working closely with him, both current and former employees. Of both his time in office and his time with the Trump Organization. Also among biographers who have spent countless hours with the man. The consistent theme from everyone who has had long, direct access to Trump is that he is a moron. It extends well past those who just oppose the man

Did you read Woodward’s book?

NebraskaFootball · 2018-09-18T15:54:27.139Z

peek-a-boo:

Did you read Woodward’s book?

I have it on Audible and have not had the chance to listen yet.

party-free · 2018-09-18T15:58:03.374Z

peek-a-boo:

You are beginning to sound like mods from the LIB forum I was on. There was some serious Bush bashing going on at the time. Pretty much dominated the forum. I was never allowed to weigh in unless I too wanted to participate in the bashing of Bush.

You didn’t weigh in on the topic of the thread. You attacked the people discussing by with the the boring HAIR ON FIRE, TRUMP HATE OMGOMGOMG business.

peek-a-boo:

This is not a LIB forum. I won’t be silenced. By far the majority of threads degenerate into a bashing of Trump in one form or another. You seem to be making the case, that Trump supporters shouldn’t be allowed to participate if they don’t want to join in.

That’s not what I either said or made a case for. I made a case for actually participating in a discussion, not posting whining hair on fire posts because you don’t like what is being discussed.

peek-a-boo:

There is no serious content being discussed here. I jumped on to express my opinion in that regard. Forum members who don’t wish to engage me are free to move on. But if one does choose to engage me, I will respond.

Your posts weren’t expressing an opinion, they were fanning flames of partisanship.

peek-a-boo · 2018-09-18T15:58:39.838Z

NebraskaFootball:

I have it on Audible and have not had the chance to listen yet.

I’m chomping at the bit to discuss the book with someone who has read it.

NebraskaFootball · 2018-09-18T16:02:07.447Z

peek-a-boo:

NebraskaFootball:

I have it on Audible and have not had the chance to listen yet.

I’m chomping at the bit to discuss the book with someone who has read it.

I know you are. I wish I’ve had the time, but alas, life and whatnot.

Hopefully in the next week or so.

peek-a-boo · 2018-09-18T16:02:13.689Z

party-free:

Your posts weren’t expressing an opinion, they were fanning flames of partisanship

But isn’t that what forum discussion is all about? Partisanship.

In regards to my original post, it was removed by the mods, which is fair. The “frothy froth; froth” meme is getting old.

I’m not attacking any individual with my responses (at least I’m trying to refrain from doing so). I’m simply summing the NYT article as a rehash of the same stuff we have heard repeatedly. I refer to that behavior as Trump-hating.

dantes · 2018-09-18T16:05:32.481Z

peek-a-boo:

I’m simply summing the NYT article as a rehash of the same stuff we have heard repeatedly

Let’s say it’s true.

So what?

party-free · 2018-09-18T16:16:26.183Z

peek-a-boo:

But isn’t that what forum discussion is all about? Partisanship.

There’s a difference between discussing a partisan topic, and fanning partisan flames by deliberately NOT discussing the topic.

peek-a-boo:

In regards to my original post, it was removed by the mods, which is fair. The “frothy froth; froth” meme is getting old.

Then consider discontinuing perpetuating it.

peek-a-boo:

I’m not attacking any individual with my responses (at least I’m trying to refrain from doing so). I’m simply summing the NYT article as a rehash of the same stuff we have heard repeatedly. I refer to that behavior as Trump-hating.

Then consider regurgitating the froth business in the comments section of the article. OP gave a fair topic to discuss.

Plasmaball · 2018-09-18T16:17:44.282Z

This is why I miss the old board…we could just put people on ignore and call it a day.

Chris · 2018-09-18T16:18:46.565Z

ohknow35:

LOL! new york times…

LOL! Baltimore Orioles…

hwyflier · 2018-09-18T16:23:44.651Z

…and one by one, facing the prisoners dilemma of not wanting to be the last to break, the joint defense deals are starting to collapse.

Rudy spent all last week telling the public, but more importantly those on his JDA that manafort would only agree to not talk about the president or campaign. We learned Instead that manafort was doing his proffer about everything at that moment. Which has to make everyone on the JDA real suspect about what Rudy thinks he knows.

BigBear · 2018-09-18T16:30:49.815Z

peek-a-boo:

I’m chomping at the bit to discuss the book with someone who has read it.

I have the book sitting on a coffee table, but no time to read it yet. [eta: I’ve listened and watched a couple of interviews with Woodward about the book.] But we could discuss anyway.
What’s your take? Just a bunch of Trump hating from disgruntled ex-staffers and various never-Trump deep staters?

peek-a-boo · 2018-09-18T16:59:11.483Z

party-free:

There’s a difference between discussing a partisan topic, and fanning partisan flames by deliberately NOT discussing the topic.

peek-a-boo:

In regards to my original post, it was removed by the mods, which is fair. The “frothy froth; froth” meme is getting old.

Then consider discontinuing perpetuating it.

peek-a-boo:

I’m not attacking any individual with my responses (at least I’m trying to refrain from doing so). I’m simply summing the NYT article as a rehash of the same stuff we have heard repeatedly. I refer to that behavior as Trump-hating.

Then consider regurgitating the froth business in the comments section of the article. OP gave a fair topic to discuss

Fair points. I’m already thinking about how I will move forward with these kinds of threads in the future.

peek-a-boo · 2018-09-18T17:01:14.051Z

BigBear:

I have the book sitting on a coffee table, but no time to read it yet. [eta: I’ve listened and watched a couple of interviews with Woodward about the book.] But we could discuss anyway.
What’s your take? Just a bunch of Trump hating from disgruntled ex-staffers and various never-Trump deep staters?

I would prefer to discuss the book with those who have read it cover to cover. I’m hoping we could dedicate a thread to that discussion. Once I get feedback from those who have completed the read, I can start a new thread if that is acceptable.

peek-a-boo · 2018-09-18T17:03:29.830Z

Plasmaball:

This is why I miss the old board…we could just put people on ignore and call it a day.

An interesting take. Me personally, I would prefer to get the full context of a conversation. Putting those who might rub me the wrong way on ignore, would make that difficult.