Needs to be said again and again. Unfortunately, there are lots of dummies around.

I have just finished reading a fascinating book entitled "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 39 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President."

The collective opinion of the mental health experts in this book centres on the idea that they had a "duty to warn" the public about what they considered his psychological unfitness for the presidency and the potential danger his personality posed to the nation and the world.

Key themes and characteristics that the contributors discuss include:

Dangerousness: This is emphasised as the primary concern, arguing that the issue is not about diagnosing a mental illness, but assessing the danger posed by his behaviour and patterns of relating to reality.

Malignant Narcissism: This is a recurring term, describing a severe form of narcissism combined with features such as paranoia, aggression, and sociopathic traits. They suggest this pattern makes him profoundly destructive.

Sociopathic Traits: Several contributors point to characteristics like an inability to feel empathy, a pattern of continuous lying, and a disregard for the rights of others.

Paranoia and Grandiosity: The experts discuss an increasing tendency toward paranoia, distrust of others, and an exaggerated sense of self-importance and power.

Impulsivity and Lack of Reflection: His personality is described as being driven by immediate reactions rather than careful, informed deliberation, which creates a high-risk situation given the power of his office.

I am not a psychologist, but I do respect the professional judgment of experts in the field. Given Trump's age, temperament, and some of his erratic political and economic actions, one wonders whether the USA would have been served better by choosing a far more stable person as its commander-in-chief.

It's not surprising that only 36% of Australians do not suffer from terminal stupidity when it comes to the US and its and Trump's value to Australia.

The majority (of those polled) prove their own stupidity by calling Donald Trump “stupid”. Call Donald Trump what you like, but he is not stupid; certainly not as stupid as his detractors. If ever there was a good example of people projecting their own failings on to someone else, this is it.

He seems a bit erratic at times, but it must be remembered that he is not a professional politician locked into ideology; and being human, he is often irritated by the nitwits he has to deal with.

I and the rest of the 36% who like him would swap Albanese for Trump any day.

"The Goldwater Rule is a statement of ethics first issued by the American Psychiatric Association in 1973 restraining psychiatrists from speculating about the mental state of public figures. The rule enjoins psychiatrists from professionally diagnosing someone they have not personally evaluated. The APA’s Ethics Committee affirmed and even expanded the rule beyond diagnosis to cover almost all psychiatric opinion in 2017, amid widespread public discussion of the mental health of President Donald J. Trump. The rule has also been affirmed by the American Psychological Association."

"
The collective opinion of the mental health experts in this book ..."

If you want to adhere to the views of so-called professionals who are prepared to flout their own profession's standards of ethics for political and/or financial gain, then let that be on you.

Every day of Trump's presidency consists of reports of what he did followed by many hours of analysis explaining that what he did was terrible. And not a jot of attention for the autopen president until his brain freeze at the debate which his minders couldn't hide.

Trump is a bit like Israel: the press never misses an opportunity to vilify him, yet show no interest in events and conduct that many might find more concerning.

From being a trustworthy ally the US of paranoia under that idiot is becoming a real worry....

The TDS mob is panicking ! Some of the hypocritical are switched on enough to realise !

there are lots of dummies around.
TomBie,
Enough to get Labor in last time !

Graham article tries to sell Trumpism as corporate triage instead of what it actually is: chaos retrofitted with meaning after the fact.

The whole article rests on three moves: inflate the crisis, sanctify the strongman, and dismiss all contrary evidence as media corruption. Once you notice that structure, the rest reads like political fan-fiction.

Start with the headline claim: Australians only distrust Trump because of "deliberate misreporting." No evidence. None. Young names the ABC as a villain but never demonstrates how they "framed" Trump for January 6. This hand-waving conveniently ignores bipartisan Senate findings, court rulings, and Trump’s own advisers who testified that he sparked the riot and then refused to stop it. "Russiagate Hoax" gets tossed in too, again without acknowledging the Mueller Report’s core findings: documented Russian interference and repeated contacts between Trump’s team and Russian actors.

Declaring something a hoax is not the same as disproving it.

Young then paints a baroque crisis narrative where every American institution is failing, every university is "ideological," every city lawless, the border undefended, the courts corrupt, the agencies weaponised, and China is simultaneously running cyberwar, drug warfare, manufacturing warfare, IP warfare, and espionage through solar panels. This is not analysis. It’s a mood board.

From this inflated crisis he conjures a saviour: Trump as the "company doctor" who sees truths others can’t. The problem is that none of the policies Young admires actually worked. Tariffs hurt US consumers and farmers, didn’t revive manufacturing, and handed China market share. Tax cuts exploded deficits without producing the promised growth. "Ending forever wars" was often incoherent retreat, not strategy. And withdrawal from the Paris Agreement weakened US influence for no strategic gain.

His immigrant numbers are wildly inflated (no, there are not 40-50 million undocumented people in the US) because the fantasy requires a looming insurgency only Trump can solve.

Young’s argument collapses under the simplest test: it only makes sense if every critic, court, expert, journalist, ally, and statistic is wrong, and Trump alone is right.

That’s not geopolitics. It’s hero-worship.

No evidence. None.
John Daysh,
Not a little too confident about that, are you ?

Oh JD's back. Enough time has passed since his last humiliation I guess.

"Australians only distrust Trump because of "deliberate misreporting." No evidence. None."

I think Graham was probably writing to an audience that had a vague knowledge of the facts surrounding the ABC's lies about Trump. Clearly you don't fall into that category. He was referring to Ferguson's doctoring of the Trump January 6 speech - the exact same doctoring that led to the BBC's utter humiliation. And he was referring to Ferguson's embarrassment of a report on the RussiaGate hoax where her assertions and claims were totally discredited once the Mueller Report was forced to admit there was no evidence of collusion between Russia and Trump.

I can't be bothered to fisk all of JD's laughable assertions - I'll leave that to GY. But just one. The USA has been handing its manufacturing dominance to China via failed trade policies, failed international institutions and failed attempts to stop intellectual property thefts for over 30 years now. And JD then asserts that 6 months of Trump tariff policy has failed to undo 30 years of errors and therefore they've failed. Someone with a modicum of sense would realise that it might take a little longer than that

What humiliation was that, mhaze?

//Enough time has passed since his last humiliation I guess.//

Personal abuse is doing the work here because the argument isn’t. If you think something I wrote is wrong, quote it and rebut it. Posturing isn't evidence.

//I think Graham was probably writing to an audience that had a vague knowledge of the facts surrounding the ABC's lies about Trump.//

That’s not how serious argument works. If you accuse the national broadcaster of lying, you demonstrate it. You don’t rely on assumed background knowledge.

//He was referring to Ferguson's doctoring of the Trump January 6 speech...//

Then show it. Quote the original speech, quote the edited version, explain how meaning was altered, and explain why that outweighs court rulings, congressional findings, sworn testimony, and Trump’s own recorded conduct. Assertion is not proof.

//…the RussiaGate hoax where her assertions and claims were totally discredited once the Mueller Report was forced to admit there was no evidence of collusion…//

This is false.

The Mueller Report did not say "no evidence." It said it could not establish criminal conspiracy to the required legal standard, while documenting extensive Russian interference and multiple contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors. Those are different claims.

//I can't be bothered to fisk all of JD's laughable assertions...//

Translation: no rebuttal. I wouldn't count on Graham coming to the rescue there, either.

//The USA has been handing its manufacturing dominance to China… for over 30 years now.//

Agreed. That does not validate Young’s argument. Long-term structural decline does not justify incoherent short-term policy.

//…JD then asserts that 6 months of Trump tariff policy has failed…//

I said the measurable outcomes so far include higher consumer prices, retaliation, and negligible reshoring. You haven’t disputed that evidence.

//Someone with a modicum of sense would realise that it might take a little longer than that//

By that logic, no policy ever fails. It just hasn’t "had enough time."

The core problem remains untouched: Young’s thesis only works if every critic, institution, court, and dataset is wrong, while Trump alone sees clearly.

Try again.

If you're unaware of how Ferguson doctored the Trump speech then we really have nothing to discuss. We've covered it in previous threads and I have no interest in relitigating it here just so you can try to catch up.

Equally, if you think Mueller found ANY evidence of Russian/Trump collusion to steal the 2016 election, we have nothing to discuss. Such wanton disregard for the facts can't be resolved in 350 words.

Just FYG..."Special Counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,"

"Attorney General William Barr's summary emphasized this finding, noting Russia interfered "in sweeping and systematic fashion" but the Trump campaign did not join those efforts."

This is evasion, nmhaze, not an argument.

//If you're unaware of how Ferguson doctored the Trump speech then we really have nothing to discuss.//

You're asserting misconduct while refusing to demonstrate it. If the claim is solid, it should survive quotation and comparison. Declining to show evidence doesn't strengthen it.

//We've covered it in previous threads and I have no interest in relitigating it here just so you can try to catch up.//

Translation: trust me, bro. Past threads don't substitute for evidence in this one. If Young relies on this claim, it's his burden to establish it.

//Equally, if you think Mueller found ANY evidence of Russian/Trump collusion to steal the 2016 election, we have nothing to discuss.//

This misstates my position. I did not claim Mueller established criminal conspiracy. I said the report documented extensive Russian interference and numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors. That is factual.

//Such wanton disregard for the facts can't be resolved in 350 words.//

And yet I seem to manage it.

What's actually unresolved is your refusal to distinguish between "did not establish prosecutable conspiracy" and "no evidence existed." Those are not the same claim.

//Just FYG..."Special Counsel Robert Mueller explicitly stated that the investigation "did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government,"//

Correct. And entirely consistent with what I said. "Did not establish" is a legal conclusion about prosecutability, not a claim that evidence was absent.

//"Attorney General William Barr's summary emphasized this finding… but the Trump campaign did not join those efforts."//

Barr's summary is not the Mueller Report. Mueller explicitly corrected Barr for mischaracterising the report's conclusions. Citing Barr to override the report's documented facts is selective quotation, not clarification.

You keep collapsing a careful legal finding into a political slogan. That's why the word "hoax" does the work your argument won't.

The pattern remains unchanged:
- Evidence is asserted but withheld.
- Legal nuance is flattened into absolutes.
- Contradiction is avoided by declaring discussion closed.

That's not how facts get established. It's how beliefs get insulated.

Why not check out these US based sites:
An extensive examination of the all-the-way-down-the-line cultural consequences the multiple narcissistic personality disorders of the Trumpen-Fuhrer

http://bandyxlee.substack.com

http://politicsusa46.substack.com Truth Matters

http://jaredyatessexton.substack.com Dispatches From a Collapsing State

I understand where you're coming from JD. Its the same argument that all the TDS crowd reverted to when their fondest wishes about Mueller proving Trump's guilt were destroyed due to lack of evidence. I've been down this road plenty of times and have no desire to go there again. This daft notion that if Trump wasn't proven innocent that means he's guilty is just evasion and the screams of those who really aren't interested in he truth.

There is no evidence that there was the slightest collusion despite Mueller spending 18 months and $32million desperately seeking it. Whine all you want but thems the facts. You say there is evidence. Show it.

As to Ferguson, GY would have expected that any reasonably literate audience would have known these facts. If you're that clueless, go look it up for yourself.



I know your game. You want me to provide the facts. Then you'll declare that the facts haven't convinced you (and lets face it, you'll never be convinced) and that therefore its all false. Well I watched the 4 Corners programme and there's no doubt the Trump speech was doctored. Go see it for yourself.

Many world leaders privately recognise and strategically manage Donald Trump’s serious psychological impairment, contrasting their diplomatic language with the danger posed by an emotionally unstable commander-in-chief who controls vast military and nuclear power.

Such impairment makes Trump highly manipulable yet profoundly dangerous, enabling escalating risks to democracy and global security.
Sadly, this frames the Trump presidency as a public health emergency, worsened by the silencing of mental health professionals under the Goldwater Rule. The overall plea is urgent: mental illness at the highest level of power must be openly assessed and managed before irreversible catastrophe occurs, and delaying psychiatric intervention only magnifies the danger.

The United States is trapped in a dangerous state of political, economic, and moral disintegration under an unstable and corrupt leader, Donald Trump, who distorts reality, undermines trust in data and institutions, and enriches himself while the country sinks into debt. Misinformation has replaced truth, corruption is enabled even by the courts, and sound economic governance has been abandoned amid soaring deficits, ineffective tariffs, and reckless policies that harm ordinary Americans.

Ultimately, Trump has inflicted lasting damage on American democracy, values, global credibility, and long-standing alliances - especially with Europe - leaving the central question not whether his era will end, but how long it will take the nation to recover from the devastation he has caused.

mhaze,

Labeling disagreement as "TDS" is not argument. It's a way of dismissing positions without engaging them.

//Its the same argument that all the TDS crowd reverted to…//

In fact, it reveals just how little Trump gives the TBL crowd to base their defence of him on.

//This daft notion that if Trump wasn't proven innocent that means he's guilty…//

I have not argued Trump was "guilty" of criminal conspiracy. I explicitly distinguished between criminal liability and documented conduct. You keep arguing against a position I haven't taken.

//There is no evidence that there was the slightest collusion despite Mueller spending 18 months and $32million desperately seeking it.//

This is false as stated. Mueller documented numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors and extensive Russian interference. What he did not establish was prosecutable conspiracy. Those are different claims.

//Whine all you want but thems the facts. You say there is evidence. Show it.//

The evidence is in the Mueller Report itself: meetings, communications, offers of assistance, and obstruction analysis. You redefine "evidence" to mean "criminal conviction," then declare victory when that standard isn't met.

//As to Ferguson, GY would have expected that any reasonably literate audience would have known these facts.//

Again, assertion without demonstration. Expectation of audience knowledge does not substitute for evidence when making a serious accusation.

//If you're that clueless, go look it up for yourself.//

That's an admission that you're unwilling to substantiate your claim here. Refusing to present evidence while insisting it exists is not how argument works.

//I know your game. You want me to provide the facts…//

No. I want claims to be demonstrated, not protected by pre-emptive mind-reading about motives.

//Well I watched the 4 Corners programme and there's no doubt the Trump speech was doctored.//

Your personal certainty is not evidence. If the speech was "doctored," quoting the original and the edit would settle it instantly. You repeatedly refuse to do that.

What's consistent throughout is this pattern:
- Claims asserted.
- Evidence withheld.
- Discussion closed by insult or exhaustion.

That's not defending facts. It's insulating belief.

"Mueller documented numerous contacts between Trump campaign figures and Russian actors and extensive Russian interference. What he did not establish was prosecutable conspiracy."

That's certifiably false. He didn't find ANY conspiracy, prosecutable or otherwise. He found zero evidence that Trump or his campaign worked with the Russians on election interference. Yes, there were contacts just as there were contacts between the Clinton campaign ad Russia. Trump's team were the alternate government and it was natural that he'd talk to foreign governments. He spoke with the Australian government as well but we didn't collude to help him win. Your claims are the epitome of thinking its true because you want it to be true.

I said "You say there is evidence. Show it."

Can't help but notice you ran a mile from that.

That statement of mine was certifiably accurate, mhaze.

//That's certifiably false. He didn't find ANY conspiracy, prosecutable or otherwise.//

Mueller said the investigation "did not establish" conspiracy. That is a legal conclusion about proof, not a declaration that no coordination or cooperation occurred.

//He found zero evidence that Trump or his campaign worked with the Russians on election interference.//

False.

The report documents meetings, communications, offers of assistance, and expectations of benefit. What it did not find was sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy. Evidence existing and evidence meeting a prosecutorial threshold are not the same thing.

//Yes, there were contacts just as there were contacts between the Clinton campaign and Russia.//

False equivalence. Mueller did not document the Clinton campaign welcoming offers of stolen material, nor obstructing an investigation afterward.

//Trump's team were the alternate government…//

No. The campaign was not the government. Many contacts occurred before the election and concerned election-related assistance, not diplomacy.

//Your claims are the epitome of thinking its true because you want it to be true.//

Projection.

My claims track the report's contents. Yours redefine "evidence" to mean "criminal conviction."

//I said "You say there is evidence. Show it."//

The evidence is documented in the Mueller Report itself. You dismiss it only because it doesn't end in indictments.

//Can't help but notice you ran a mile from that.//

No. You keep moving the goalposts. Your evasion does not become mine.

"The report documents meetings, communications, offers of assistance, and expectations of benefit. What it did not find was sufficient evidence to charge criminal conspiracy."

That's just false. Never happened. You're always demanding evidence. Show it.

"Many contacts occurred before the election and concerned election-related assistance'

That's just false. Never happened. You're always demanding evidence. Show it.

"The evidence is documented in the Mueller Report itself."

That's just false.

This is not a dispute about interpretation, mhaze:

//That's just false. Never happened. You're always demanding evidence. Show it.//

It is a denial of documented facts.

Mueller actually spells this out. He documents meetings and communications between Trump campaign figures and Russian-linked actors, including offers of help and an expectation that the campaign would gain from it, and then explains why that material still wasn’t enough to meet the legal bar for a conspiracy charge.

//That's just false. Never happened. You're always demanding evidence. Show it.//

Again, this is flat denial, not rebuttal.

Mueller documents pre-election contacts involving election-related material, including discussions about obtaining information harmful to Clinton and awareness that it originated with Russian sources. That these contacts did not lead to charges does not mean they did not occur.

//That's just false.//

Nuh-uh!

This reduces your argument to “the report says what I say it says.” That is not a counter-argument. Mueller explicitly distinguished between documented conduct and evidence sufficient to establish criminal conspiracy. You keep erasing that distinction by redefining “evidence” to mean “successful prosecution.”

At this point, the disagreement is no longer substantive. You are simply asserting that material Mueller himself describes does not exist, while refusing to engage with the report’s contents except for its charging decisions.

That is not evidentiary debate. It is denial by repetition.

If your position is now that nothing in the Mueller Report counts as evidence unless it resulted in indictments, then say that explicitly. But stop pretending the report is silent on the conduct it painstakingly documents.

In a parallel to the way the ABC doctored the Trump J6 speech, the BBC did the exact same thing. Indeed its likely the ABC took their lead from the BBC. For that act of journalistic lying, the BBC have "apologised to the president for the Panorama documentary, admitting the edit gave the mistaken impression that he had made a direct call for violent action."
Trump is now suing them. And Sarah Ferguson is keeping her head down.

"He documents meetings and communications between Trump campaign figures and Russian-linked actors, including offers of help "

So you keep saying. But have yet to provide a single bit of the evidence. I actually know the incidents you're talking about and that's how I know you have completely misunderstood it or are completely misrepresenting it.

The fact is that RussiaGate was invented by the Clinton campaign to try to deflect from the proof that they were running an illegal server and that was picked up and amplified by the Obama regime and a corrupt FBI to firstly justify illegal surveillance of the Trump campaign, and then, after Trump won, to try to hamstring his presidency. The good of the nation wasn't a concern.

This is irrelevant to the point at issue, mhaze:

//In a parallel to the way the ABC doctored the Trump J6 speech, the BBC did the exact same thing…//

Even if every broadcaster edited badly, Trump's responsibility for January 6 does not rest on one TV package. It rests on weeks of false claims, pressure on officials, summoning supporters to Washington, "fight like hell" rhetoric, and hours of inaction once violence began. Editing disputes don't erase that record.

//So you keep saying. But have yet to provide a single bit of the evidence.//

Here are examples Mueller himself documents:

- Campaign contacts with WikiLeaks regarding the release of hacked material.
- Repeated communications between campaign figures and Russian-linked intermediaries during the election period.
- Trump Tower meeting (June 2016): senior campaign figures met Russians offering "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump" (Vol I).

Mueller then explains why this conduct did not meet the legal standard to charge conspiracy. That distinction is explicit.

You may dispute the significance of this conduct, but denying that it occurred contradicts the report itself.

//I actually know the incidents you're talking about and that's how I know you have completely misunderstood it…//

Then explain how. Saying "you misunderstood" without explanation is not a rebuttal.

//The fact is that RussiaGate was invented by the Clinton campaign…//

This is a separate conspiracy narrative. Mueller found Russian interference occurred. That finding does not depend on Clinton, Obama, the FBI, or anyone else's motives.

The pattern is clear: first you said the evidence didn't exist. Now you say it exists but doesn't count. That's a shift, not a refutation.

If your position is that documented conduct doesn't matter unless it produces indictments, say that plainly. But stop pretending Mueller's report is silent on what it clearly describes.

"Even if every broadcaster edited badly,"

Oh good. Glad you caught on...or caught up....or admitted it.

"Trump's responsibility for January 6 does not rest on one TV package. "

Quick says JD. I've screwed up again...change the subject.

"Campaign contacts with WikiLeaks regarding the release of hacked material."

So nothing to do with Russia? And it wasn't the campaign that had some brief discussions with Wikileaks....discussions that went nowhere.

"Trump Tower meeting (June 2016): senior campaign figures met Russians offering "official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary" as "part of Russia and its government's support for Mr Trump" (Vol I)."

Yeah that's the one I kept hoping you'd get around to researching and learning about. Let me fill you in on some of the things you didn't learn or don't want to know:

1. It was a low level meeting. Trump wasn't there nor were any of the senior campaign people.
2. It lasted all of 30 minutes.
3. The Russians there had nothing to do with the Russian government.
4. The Russians did suggest they might have had some dirt on Clinton and the Trump side figured they might as well hear them out. They had no such dirt, offered nothing, and simply wanted to talk about reducing sanctions of some Russians.
5. Nothing happened (no collusion, no passing of information, no election interference) but this was the best the Mueller could come up with and obviously the best (or worst) you could come up with.

"This is a separate conspiracy narrative. "
No its an established fact.

"Mueller found Russian interference occurred."
No one ever disputed that the Russians interfered in the election. But it wasn't coordinated with Trump and nothing was ever found to show it was. Additionally, a good part of that interference was in support of Clinton. The Russians didn't want to support one side or the other but just to create doubt and confusion within the electoral process.

This is the part you utterly misunderstand.

That’s not a concession, mhaze.

//Oh good. Glad you caught on…or admitted it.//

Neither. It’s narrowing the issue.

I've always acknowledged that the editing disputes were real - while pointing out their irrelevancy to the claim you were making.

//Quick says JD. I've screwed up again...change the subject.//

January 6 responsibility was always the subject. You tried to reduce it to a media-editing argument. I rejected that reduction.

//So nothing to do with Russia?//

WikiLeaks published material hacked by Russian intelligence. Mueller explicitly treats WikiLeaks as part of the Russian interference ecosystem. Pretending otherwise is artificial compartmentalisation.

//It wasn't the campaign that had some brief discussions with Wikileaks…//

Campaign figures did communicate about releases and timing. Whether those discussions “went nowhere” is beside the point. The contact itself is what was documented.

//It was a low level meeting…Trump wasn't there…//

Mueller never claimed Trump was present. The issue is senior campaign figures responding positively to an offer explicitly framed as Russian government support.

//It lasted all of 30 minutes.//

Duration is not a defence. Willingness is the evidentiary point.

//The Russians there had nothing to do with the Russian government.//

The offer was explicitly presented as “part of Russia and its government’s support”. That framing is why Mueller treats it as relevant, regardless of whether it delivered.

//Nothing happened…this was the best Mueller could come up with.//

Again, outcome =/= evidence. Mueller documents conduct and intent, then explains why it didn’t meet the criminal threshold.

//No its an established fact.//

It’s an established claim, not an established fact. Mueller did not adopt it.

//No one ever disputed that the Russians interfered…//

Correct - and Mueller’s task was to assess contacts, responses, and willingness. That’s what you’re now minimising after denying it existed.

That said, this bears re-quoting:

"Quick, says JD. I've screwed up again... change the subject." - mhaze

Heh.

"I've always acknowledged that the editing disputes were real "

That a straight up lie. Go back and read what you actually wrote.

"January 6 responsibility was always the subject."
That a straight up lie. Go back and read what you actually wrote.

"WikiLeaks published material hacked by Russian intelligence"
Nup. Clinton claimed, without the slightest proof, that is hacked by Russia. It was part of her attempt to hide the criminality of having an unauthorised server. Wikileaks always said they didn't get their leaks from Russia. And St Julian wouldn't lie about that.

"Campaign figures did communicate about releases and timing. "
Nup. It was people who supported Trump but weren't part of the campaign.

"The offer was explicitly presented as “part of Russia and its government’s support”."

So what? And its not true anyway. But the facts are that they had nothing to do with the Russian government and therefore there was no collusion between Trump and the Russian government. Is that tooooo logical for you? Oh and if there was already contact with the Russian government, why did a clandestine meeting have to arranged? Is that tooooo logical for you?

"Mueller did not adopt it."

Mueller didn't investigate it. Just making stuff up again. And stuff up seems to be the order of the day.

Its clear that you really know little about this and are relying on Grok to feed you snippets of the story. That's not how the search for the truth works.

Done.

Don't get too excited, mhaze.

//That a straight up lie. Go back and read what you actually wrote.//

This is a wording issue, not a factual one.

I didn’t accept the editing claim as established until it was demonstrated; my point has always been that, even if true, it is irrelevant to Trump’s responsibility for January 6. I have remained consistent there, and even if I hadn't it wouldn't matter.

You're obviously very panicked now.

//January 6 responsibility was always the subject.//

Indeed, it was. That's why you attempted to collapse that responsibility into a media-editing dispute. I rejected that reduction from the outset.

//Nup. Clinton claimed… Wikileaks always said they didn’t get their leaks from Russia.//

You’re privileging the denial of the publishing intermediary over the findings of US intelligence agencies, the Mueller investigation, and a bipartisan Senate committee. That’s not scepticism, it’s source-selection.

//Nup. It was people who supported Trump but weren’t part of the campaign.//

Mueller documents communications involving campaign figures and intermediaries during the election period. Downgrading their status doesn’t erase the conduct.

//The offer was explicitly presented as part of Russia and its government’s support.//

That is how it was framed to the campaign. Whether the offer delivered is beside the point. Willingness and response are what Mueller examined.

//Mueller didn’t investigate it.//

False. Mueller explicitly addresses these events while explaining why they did not meet the criminal threshold for conspiracy.

At this point the pattern is clear: You’ve moved from "this never happened" to "it happened but doesn’t matter", and now to "you lied about what you said."

That’s not rebuttal. It’s retreat.

//Done.//

I'll bet.

Like a cornered and frightened critter, you've thrashed about and are now going to hightail it out of here - but only because you think you scratched me on the way out.

Bye bye.

"January 6 responsibility was always the subject."

Well I never wrote a single word about that. You just invented that as a topic once you realised you were utterly wrong on the actual topic.

"Mueller documents communications involving campaign figures"

More fabrication. Just hoping its true doesn't make it true.

"The offer was explicitly presented as part of Russia and its government’s support."

More fabrication.

But you've gone from claims that there was collusion but not enough evidence to prove it, to claims that if things had have been different there might have been collusion.

Again, just relying on Grok isn't the search for truth.

And just saying post after post that you want it to be true, therefore it is true is all very childish.

You’re right on one narrow point, mhaze, and I’ll correct it explicitly.

When I said "January 6 responsibility was always the subject", that was imprecise. Your original focus was media editing and Russiagate. January 6 responsibility became relevant because you invoked alleged media framing to absolve Trump of responsibility. That’s the correct scope, and I’m happy to state it that way.

That correction changes nothing else.

It does not turn documented conduct into "fabrication".
It does not convert "did not establish conspiracy" into "no evidence existed".
And it does not rescue the claim that Mueller was silent on campaign contacts.

So on substance, you’re still doing the same thing:

- When I say Mueller documents communications involving campaign figures, you respond "fabrication" without engaging the report.

- When I quote how the Trump Tower offer was framed, you respond "not true anyway" without evidence.

- When I distinguish evidence from prosecutability, you re-label that as "claims of collusion" that I never made.

That’s not a rebuttal. It’s denial framed to distract.

I have not shifted from "collusion existed" to "it might have existed". I never claimed collusion existed. I’ve consistently said Mueller documented contacts, offers, and responses, and then explained why they did not meet the criminal threshold.

Correcting one piece of wording does not retroactively make the rest of your claims true. If anything, the fact that you’re now arguing wording rather than substance shows where the ground actually shifted.

If you want to dispute what Mueller documented, do that.
If you want to argue that documented conduct is irrelevant unless indictments follow, say that plainly.

But pretending the report says less than it does isn’t a correction. It’s avoidance.

So as regards the Trump Tower meeting, what we have from JD is an admission that there was no collusion involved there since no data existed that might have lead to collusion. But JD, hilariously then seems to want to say that IF there had been something to collude over THEN Trump would have done so and that proves he colluded, although not criminally...or something.

Talk about a tangled web. I'm not even sure JD knows what he means any more. But to summarise, according to JD, there was no collusion but if there was something to collude over there would have been collusion.

But we've come full circle. GY's original post was about "Trump for Dummies" with the thesis being that many hate Trump, not because of his policies but because of the way he' misrepresented in the Australian media.

And JD ha exemplified that in spades. He knew nothing about the fabrication performed by the ABC and others around the Trump speech on January 6, and just accepted that Trump had called for the violence. And he knew nothing about how thoroughly debunked the whole RussiaGate story had become, just believing the media's assertions that there was collusion.

So in at least the case of JD, Graham's point is fully realised. A more thorough vindication is difficult to imagine.

________________________________________________________________________

Leaving JD to wallow in his ignorance, we move on. Remember how the media advised us that it was an established fact that Trump's tariffs would lead to inflation in the US? Yeah well, never mind ...
http://tiny.cc/xvlw001

mhaze,

Your declaration of victory over a caricature of my position only tells us one thing: you are someone who desperately feels the need for a debate to end on your terms - even when you lost it long ago.

I have never argued that Trump "colluded but not criminally," nor that he "would have colluded if only there was something to collude over." That is your invention, not my position.

What I've said consistently is simple: Mueller documented contacts, offers, and responses, and then explained why they did not meet the legal threshold for conspiracy. Evidence of conduct is not the same thing as a chargeable offence. Treating those as identical is your error, not mine.

Correcting sloppy wording does not retroactively turn documented material into "fabrication," and denying that material exists does not make it disappear. You know this, of course, but as I've pointed out many times now - you're all performance and no substance.

As for the rest, you've now moved on to tariffs and inflation, citing a single CPI print that the same article explicitly cautions against over-interpreting. That's a different discussion entirely.

You've made it clear you're not interested in engaging with the report itself, only with a version of my argument that's easier to dismiss. On that basis, I'm content to stop here - unless you decide you'd like to start address what I say.

Your call...

So now, having been beaten over the head with reality, you're saying there was no collusion. Finally got something right.

No collusion means RussiaGate was a hoax. Contacts between the Trump team and Russian elements isn't evidence of anything and was perfectly normal and standard.

But you fell for the stories fed to you which is precisely what GY said at the outset.

Hilariously, you banked all on a meeting that Grok fed you which had precisely no discussions about the election and was all about attempts to get sanctions on some non-government Russians lifted. But that meeting was played up by the RussiaGate hoaxers as proof of collusion which you fell for because that's what the anti-Trump media fed you. And as much as you'd prefer otherwise, that is eminently mockable.

mhaze,

The total absence of any quotes to support your caricature of my position exposes your confidence-cloaked bluff.

So, let's take a look at what I've actually said...

"Mueller said the investigation "did not establish" conspiracy. That is a legal conclusion about proof, not a declaration that no coordination or cooperation occurred."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400926

"Evidence existing and evidence meeting a prosecutorial threshold are not the same thing."
"Mueller documents contacts, offers, and responses, and then explains why that conduct did not meet the legal standard to charge conspiracy."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400950

At no point do I say Trump colluded. At no point do I say "collusion but not criminally". And at no point do I treat the Trump Tower meeting as proof of conspiracy. I explicitly say the opposite.

Of course, that doesn't stop you claiming otherwise:

"You’ve gone from claims that there was collusion but not enough evidence to prove it…"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400947

"You’re saying IF there had been something to collude over THEN Trump would have colluded…"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400957

And my favourite:

"[JD] hilariously then seems to want to say that IF there had been something to collude over THEN Trump would have done so and that proves he colluded, although not criminally...or something."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=23774#400961

That "or something" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there! But since when has it been alright for something to "seem" a particular way?

"JD SEEMS to be a moron." - mhaze
"Although I suspect you'd SEEM to misunderstand it." - mhaze
"Paul SEEMS to be learning from JD." - mhaze
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10594#369885

(Them's mocking caps there!)

Getting back on track...

If I claimed collusion, quote me.
If I claimed RussiaGate was proven, quote me.
If I said Trump Tower "proved" anything, quote me.

There's a consistent distinction between documented conduct and chargeable conspiracy. Mueller makes that distinction explicitly. Collapsing it into "hoax vs collusion" is a rhetorical shortcut, not an argument.

Confidence isn’t evidence, mhaze, and arguing against a position I never took doesn’t make it mine.

If I've missed something, then quote it. Or just keep doing what you're doing - it's going great for you!

This all started off with JD asserting that Graham was wrong to say Australian's had been misled about Trump due to things like the ABC's false editing of Trump's J6 speech and their false reporting promoting the RussiaGate hoax.

But it seems that JD is now conceding that indeed the ABC did falsely edit the speech and that claims Trump colluded with Russia are wrong, which of course means that reporting it as factual as the ABC did, misled Australians.

Meaning GY's original points are vindicated. That's seems to be an appropriate spot to end the discussion.

And still not a single quote, mhaze. Just as I predicted.

Why?

Because even you know that what your claiming isn't true. Your summary only works by collapsing distinctions I’ve been explicit about throughout.

Acknowledging flawed editing in one broadcast does not amount to conceding that Australians were broadly “misled about Trump”, nor does it absolve Trump of responsibility for January 6. Those are separate questions.

Likewise, acknowledging that Mueller did not establish criminal conspiracy does not turn the investigation into a “hoax”, nor does it make reporting on Russian interference and documented campaign contacts false or misleading. Mueller rejected that binary himself.

You’ve again replaced what I actually argued with a simplified version that happens to vindicate Graham Young’s thesis. That doesn’t make it accurate.

If you’re content to end the discussion on a summary you constructed rather than one that reflects what was said, that’s your choice. The record, however, is already clear.

//Meaning GY's original points are vindicated.//

Apparently not.

//That's seems to be an appropriate spot to end the discussion.//

Indeed it does. Don't let the door hit you on the way out...

A dog chasing its tail.

JD wants to say that GY was wrong to say Australians were misled by the media on Trump's speech and RussiaGate while at the same time admitting that what the media said about the speech and RussiaGate was wrong.

Somehow he wants to believe that there was no collusion but that its not misleading to say there was collusion.

Struth

______________________________________________________________

Just noting this even though people like JD will pretend it didn't happen:

*Trump was impeached for pushing to have the election results in Georgia in 2020 examined. Georgia has just admitted that 315000 votes in 2020 were illegally counted. ie the election was stolen.

*its now been proven that the Biden White House pushed the FBI to perform the Mar-a-lago raid on Trump even though they denied it at the time and even though the FBI thought there was no legally valid reason to do it. It was just an attempt to force an opponent out of politics. Just as Trump said at the time.

Ah, I knew you'd return, mhaze!

Again.

Unfortunately, though, you're just restating the same false equivalence. And now you're piling on unrelated claims.

As you should well know by now - or likely knew all along - I've never said it isn't misleading to falsely report collusion. That's why you don't quote me saying that.

Acknowledging flawed reporting in some cases does not vindicate Graham's sweeping claim that Australians were broadly misled about Trump. You keep asserting that leap without providing evidence for it. Perhaps the evidence is with those damning quotes of mine?

(Have you checked behind the couch?)

Introducing Georgia vote fantasies and Mar-a-Lago conspiracy claims doesn't strengthen your argument. It confirms that you've abandoned the original one.

The record is already clear, the quotes are already there, and you still haven't produced a single quote supporting the position you keep attributing to me.

I look forward to your next round of conspicuously missing quotes.

Until then...

"Introducing Georgia vote fantasies and Mar-a-Lago conspiracy claims doesn't strengthen your argument. It confirms that you've abandoned the original one."

Over the week its been crystal clear how much you've been misled on Trump. I simply mentioned these newest revelations to try to help you keep up to date on all the things said about Trump that turn out to be false.

Nice summary GY. Kudos. Good to see Paul is on holidays even though he probably wants to destroy Christmas along with white people and their statues. Wishing everyone a White Christmas and a productive and prosperous New Year!