The Boy Who Cried Wolf, A Story the Progressive-Left Fails to Heed.

[Lovebug]

That's exactly what you did, yes.

Please explain how I am making excuses when I find both sides' behavior despicable.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I've used that story on my kids and my parents used it on me also, so yep, know it well.

And I think there is some truth in your post.

Frankly I'm not near as worried about what Muellers investigation will or will not turn up as I am about what's going on with both sides. I don't remember much of Clinton when he was in office. I wasn't much into politics at the time so didn't pay attention. Everything seemed relatively peaceful. Just normal bickering as I've since learned. With Bush Jr I was more aware. During the first half of Bush Jr. Presidency it seemed that both sides were relatively co-operating with each other. They didn't like each other, but there was co-operation. Then when Bush Jr. was re-elected and the courts sided with Bush the dislike between each other grew. Then Obama came along. And the dislike between the parties turned into extreme dislike. Almost, but not quite hatred. And then the 2016 campaign came along and it turned into flat out hatred. This is worrisome to say the least.

Too many now a days are taking things out of context. They're not looking at the whole picture. Whether this is intentionally or blind partisanship I don't know. I'd estimate its 50/50. My hope is that things will turn out for the better in the end. My worry is that all of this is going to split our country apart. People need to get a grip.

 

[eohrnberger]

Moreover, people who actually viewed the entire video know he was referring to the report that 5 nations had probably hacked her private server before she was allowed by the FBI to delete 30000 "personal" emails before having the remainder reviewed by the investigators.

So he was making a joke that if the Russian's were the hackers (as opposed to the Chinese or other three alleged possibilities) it would please the press if they find them and release them. He never asked the Russians to hack her server.

Not only that, I do seem to recall that the timeline doesn't stack up that way. I do seem to recall that the DNC hack, as well as the Podesta phish happened before Trump made this joking statement.

Putting even a finer point on it, Trump wasn't asking 'Russian hackers' to hack Hillary's email, he was asking for them to share them if they had already hacked them. Quite a different thing than asking the Russians to hack her email server at that time (which was an impossibility as it was already in FBI's hands and / or off the Internet and / or turned off and / or already wiped).

Seems that there's conflating of facts / miss ordering of events for partisan hackery about.

 

[GDViking]

It was that Russia was involved at all, until it was shown that our intelligence agencies were correct and they were involved, then you shifted gears to arguing it happened but he wasn't involved. He stood in front of the entire world on live TV and told the Russians to hack his opponent, so they did. Not sure how that's not collusion.

Also if you read the time line in the indictment it really appears that his request was code to let the Russians know that they except their offer of assistance and to begin the operation.

 

[eohrnberger]

No.



In point of fact, his exact words were "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing."

He did not ask them to "Hack Hillary." The 30,000 email's referred to were already deleted from Hillary's private server...hence the "missing" emails.

It is a blatant misrepresentation of what he actually said, clearly in jest in any case, and a continued falsehood your side has been perpetuating.

The fact the GRU attempted a hack later is no evidence of anything. Correlation does not imply causation. :coffeepap:

Exactly my point above.

 

[eohrnberger]

Except no one, not Mueller or anyone else in authority, has ever suggested that Trump's statement was anything other than a joke.



I repeat -- anyone with a brain knows it was a joke.

Besides -- the DNC was hacked July 25th and Trump made his comment two days later.

Don't you mean that the DNC hack became public knowledge on 7/25 (probably a WikiLeaks release)? Who knows how long ago the DNC was actually 'hacked'?

 

[HowardBThiname]

Don't you mean that the DNC hack became public knowledge on 7/25 (probably a WikiLeaks release)? Who knows how long ago the DNC was actually 'hacked'?

Good point.

At any rate it was hacked before Trump's comment so RapidAlpaca is just plain wrong.

Again.

 

[polgara]

To be perfectly honest with you, Cap'n, I tend to agree with a lot of what you've got here. You won't see a lot of posts from me about the investigation, other than to say that in my opinion (which is all I get, since I'm not American) the investigation should take place...or if I happened to be feeling salty and flippant at the time...hehe... But my stance has always been have the investigation, but react to the judgement. Doing otherwise could come off as "crying wolf", but worse, one could be putting themselves into a frenzied state that they will be embarrassed for if the findings come down other than they thought it would. And, of course, the worst outcome is the further division this creates, maybe for nothing... Of course, this is a debate forum, so speculation is allowed...so long as it is qualified as speculation.

That said, while I can understand the tendency of Trump's supporters (or level headed folks simply sitting on the fence, if to a lesser extent) to use these unproven opinions and theories being presented as fact by Trump's critics to simply write the allegations off altogether, I would hope that they, too, would be disciplined enough to keep an equally open mind, should the results come back other than what they want them to be. Using the Left's (or whatever portion of the Left, let's not broad brush) desire to "assume the sale" as an excuse to ignore official results, writing them off as some Leftist conspiracy, would be equally wrong and credibility damaging (not accusing anyone of that, of course, since we don't have those results yet, so who knows how people will act, this is merely cautionary).

However...I wish there was some parallel parable to the little boy who cried wolf (maybe there is, perhaps someone can let me know) that spoke to the fact that when one finds themselves in one scandal, perhaps they can be given the benefit of the doubt, but at some point it is difficult to ask for that as the scandals pile up. Maybe the same parable applies, I'm not sure, I'm only about three sips into the first coffee of the day...hehe... But I think you get what I'm saying. Whether your president is truly guilty of all the scandals piling up against him, or he has been so ineffectual at capturing the public's support (because he is ALL of America's president, not just those that agree with him...he is supposed to serve you all, if I understand the job correctly) that he can't get out from under "fake" attacks, he is equally impeded from doing his job - partially or completely can be debated, I'm sure.

I think there are enough real things going on to be concerned. Whether Trump's problematic (we'll call it problematic instead of disastrous to avoid instigating an off topic debate) foreign policy is tied to Russian collusion or not, the results are still "problematic". There's enough real stuff to be worried about that folks should have plenty to keep them busy without jumping to conclusions regarding unfinished investigations.

So, Cap'n, I guess I'm agreeing with you today.

Greetings, OlNate. :2wave:

This post is one of the best I've read in a long time! :bravo: . :applaud

 

[NonoBadDog]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I found the shortest video version for your edification:

(Warning: Foul language.)



I bring this up because that's how I see many on the Progressive-Left and in the MSM acting ever since President Trump was elected.

Story after story about how some action by the Mueller investigation, or revelation by some anonymous information source, or even some side-show (like Stormy Daniels) is going to be "the wolf" that eats Trump, proving once and for all Trump stole the election through some dastardly trick.

That he'll finally be impeached, and the world will be all roses and sunshine again.

Yet each time the "Wolf! Wolf!" turns out to be nothing; a false alarm which raised hopes then had to be quickly dropped. Subsequently a new "revelation" occurs, and "Wolf! Wolf!" is cried loudly and clearly again only to end up with no wolf after all.

Most recently it is the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, one of whom pretended to be a Romanian hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0.

Apparently, per our wolf-crying peers, Roger Stone is now the new "certain connection" to Russian collusion which will finally tie all the loose strings together to oust Trump so that truth, justice, and the American Way will prevail. :roll:

Yet it all remains (as usual) blatant speculation and conspiracy theory touted as "Truth!" :yes:

Has anyone thought that it might be better to simply let the investigation run it's course?

That IF any actual tie to the President or his Administration FACTUALLY comes to light, and indictments are presented stating so, THEN would be the time to shout that a "Wolf!" has entered the fold?

Until then, all this "crying wolf" sounds like desperately bored and frustrated shepherd boys trying to keep relevant when they know there is no actual wolf.

Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, if something ever does show up, the townspeople will just ignore it because they have no reason to believe you anymore.

Many people, including myself, are already there. Hence our silence when a new Anti-Administration thread is posted in the Forum which becomes an echo-chamber for the wolf-criers. :coffeepap:

Under Kerry (Obama administration) the State Department gave 300,000 dollars to a OneVoice who used the money to build their infrastructure to try to change the elections in Israel. Their mission was to oust Netanyahu. Maybe this is just another example of the liberals double standard. It's okay if they want to do it to someone else but not okay if someone does it to them. Maybe we should look at our government's actions also.

Mueller's team did everything they could to avoid discovery in the hearings for one company that stepped up to the plate in court in regards to the indictment against them. I suspect that The investigatory team didn't think that anyone would challenge them while hiding out in Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if these indictments were just for show.

 

[Josie]

This reminds me when a group of my first graders were acting out The Boy Who Cried Wolf and the sheep couldn't stop laughing.

 

[Josie]

As I've said from the beginning of this, if Trump or his administration had anything to do with Russia hacking into computer to dig up dirt on people or to "hack" the election, then all involved should be indicted and tried, fired or impeached, etc. Until there is evidence of that, they are innocent.

 

[JasperL]

Under Kerry (Obama administration) the State Department gave 300,000 dollars to a OneVoice who used the money to build their infrastructure to try to change the elections in Israel. Their mission was to oust Netanyahu. Maybe this is just another example of the liberals double standard. It's okay if they want to do it to someone else but not okay if someone does it to them. Maybe we should look at our government's actions also.

We have spies all over the world. I guess we're all hypocritical dumb****s for trying to root them out here in the U.S. and if they're citizens, charging them with crimes involving the death penalty. Makes sense, or it's the dumbest talking point of all time - I'll go with the latter myself.

Mueller's team did everything they could to avoid discovery in the hearings for one company that stepped up to the plate in court in regards to the indictment against them. I suspect that The investigatory team didn't think that anyone would challenge them while hiding out in Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if these indictments were just for show.

That's nonsense. The defendants wanted to see Mueller's case with zero intention of any of them actually presenting themselves for a trial and possible conviction and jail term.

 

[Fletch]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?[/B

I bring this up because that's how I see many on the Progressive-Left and in the MSM acting ever since President Trump was elected.

Story after story about how some action by the Mueller investigation, or revelation by some anonymous information source, or even some side-show (like Stormy Daniels) is going to be "the wolf" that eats Trump, proving once and for all Trump stole the election through some dastardly trick.

That he'll finally be impeached, and the world will be all roses and sunshine again.

Yet each time the "Wolf! Wolf!" turns out to be nothing; a false alarm which raised hopes then had to be quickly dropped. Subsequently a new "revelation" occurs, and "Wolf! Wolf!" is cried loudly and clearly again only to end up with no wolf after all.

Most recently it is the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, one of whom pretended to be a Romanian hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0.

Apparently, per our wolf-crying peers, Roger Stone is now the new "certain connection" to Russian collusion which will finally tie all the loose strings together to oust Trump so that truth, justice, and the American Way will prevail. :roll:

Yet it all remains (as usual) blatant speculation and conspiracy theory touted as "Truth!" :yes:

Has anyone thought that it might be better to simply let the investigation run it's course?

That IF any actual tie to the President or his Administration FACTUALLY comes to light, and indictments are presented stating so, THEN would be the time to shout that a "Wolf!" has entered the fold?

Until then, all this "crying wolf" sounds like desperately bored and frustrated shepherd boys trying to keep relevant when they know there is no actual wolf.

Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, if something ever does show up, the townspeople will just ignore it because they have no reason to believe you anymore.

Many people, including myself, are already there. Hence our silence when a new Anti-Administration thread is posted in the Forum which becomes an echo-chamber for the wolf-criers. :coffeepap:

I think you have summed it up nicely. The lefts over-the-top, hyperbolic, unhinged reaction to everything Trump says or does, makes it impossible to take them seriously. Since the moment he was elected, the left said he was going to destroy the economy, he was Hitler, a puppet of Putin, a traitor, his tax cuts were armageddon, his SC picks will destroy our rights, hes going to get us into a nuclear war, he is going to destroy NATO. I mean the list is endless. At some point, the left may actually see a real wolf, but no one will pay attention.

 

[Thoreau72]

The people didn’t make their decision to pay the boy no heed at the very moment he cried wolf that last time. No, they decided not to take him seriously at the end of the episode before that one. Allow me to illustrate.

1) Boy cries wolf when there is no wolf. People come. Walk away miffed.

2) Boy cries wolf when there is no wolf. People come. Walk away miffed.

3) Boy cries wolf when there is no wolf. People come. Decide to not trust him again.


Still don’t trust him.

Keep scrolling down.

Still don’t trust him.

Keep scrolling down.

Still don’t trust him.

Keep scrolling down.

Still don’t trust him.

Keep scrolling down.

Still don’t trust him.

Keep scrolling down.

4) A real wolf arrives. Boy cries wolf. People don’t come. They haven’t trusted him since (3).



During the time the people no longer trusted him he may have continued lying. Nobody believed him.

It looks to me that several of the parameters for the issues you discuss like "what the people are thinking" are difficult to define. How do we define "what the people are thinking?"

 

[ttwtt78640]

You could be right - unless it is a guy who looks like a drunken and unwashed Johnny Depp who provided you with the treasure map.

Trump does not appear to have had any hand in the release of the DNC server hacked material from Wikileaks to the MSM.

 

[MrPeanut]

I agree with the idea that we should let the investigation run its course. I would like to hear less baseless accusations from everyone involved. Every week we have more guesses about where this investigation is going from democrats, and we have new attacks on our intelligence community from republicans. This has become party politics stretched to its greatest extent.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Odd how some see the very idea of progress (and those who support it) as somehow negative, using the word as an epithet, when in fact it's a compliment.

 

[haymarket]

Trump does not appear to have had any hand in the release of the DNC server hacked material from Wikileaks to the MSM.

Patience my friend... patience.

 

[apdst]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I found the shortest video version for your edification:

(Warning: Foul language.)



I bring this up because that's how I see many on the Progressive-Left and in the MSM acting ever since President Trump was elected.

Story after story about how some action by the Mueller investigation, or revelation by some anonymous information source, or even some side-show (like Stormy Daniels) is going to be "the wolf" that eats Trump, proving once and for all Trump stole the election through some dastardly trick.

That he'll finally be impeached, and the world will be all roses and sunshine again.

Yet each time the "Wolf! Wolf!" turns out to be nothing; a false alarm which raised hopes then had to be quickly dropped. Subsequently a new "revelation" occurs, and "Wolf! Wolf!" is cried loudly and clearly again only to end up with no wolf after all.

Most recently it is the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, one of whom pretended to be a Romanian hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0.

Apparently, per our wolf-crying peers, Roger Stone is now the new "certain connection" to Russian collusion which will finally tie all the loose strings together to oust Trump so that truth, justice, and the American Way will prevail. :roll:

Yet it all remains (as usual) blatant speculation and conspiracy theory touted as "Truth!" :yes:

Has anyone thought that it might be better to simply let the investigation run it's course?

That IF any actual tie to the President or his Administration FACTUALLY comes to light, and indictments are presented stating so, THEN would be the time to shout that a "Wolf!" has entered the fold?

Until then, all this "crying wolf" sounds like desperately bored and frustrated shepherd boys trying to keep relevant when they know there is no actual wolf.

Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, if something ever does show up, the townspeople will just ignore it because they have no reason to believe you anymore.

Many people, including myself, are already there. Hence our silence when a new Anti-Administration thread is posted in the Forum which becomes an echo-chamber for the wolf-criers. :coffeepap:

The Leftists refuse, or are unable to accept the reality that the common folks dared to vote for someone other than Clinton. I mean, how dare we vote for someone else? We were told that we should listen to them (because they're smarter) and just do as they say. Their agenda is so perfect; how could anyone not be in favor of it?

Their ****ting of their pants has nothing to do with President Trump, nor the Russians. It has everything to do with Clinton losing. It wouldn't matter who won, he would be racist, stupid and in bed with the Russians.

Had Clinton won, the Russia Connection wouldn't even be news. The Leftists wouldn't say a word about it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Patience my friend... patience.

Yep, it has only been two years, after all - something might turn up eventually.

 

[haymarket]

Yep, it has only been two years, after all - something might turn up eventually.

I kept telling my second wife that on our honeymoon.

 

[eohrnberger]

Under Kerry (Obama administration) the State Department gave 300,000 dollars to a OneVoice who used the money to build their infrastructure to try to change the elections in Israel. Their mission was to oust Netanyahu. Maybe this is just another example of the liberals double standard. It's okay if they want to do it to someone else but not okay if someone does it to them. Maybe we should look at our government's actions also.

Mueller's team did everything they could to avoid discovery in the hearings for one company that stepped up to the plate in court in regards to the indictment against them. I suspect that The investigatory team didn't think that anyone would challenge them while hiding out in Russia. It wouldn't surprise me if these indictments were just for show.

Mueller's indictments are just an attempt to derail the up coming Trump - Putin meeting. If so, that's a pretty lame attempt, as all Trump has to say is that he's got no control over Mueller, which is true.

If a investigation starts with a crime and evidence, which leads to a criminal, it is, in fact, a criminal investigation.
If a investigation starts with a suspect and looks for evidence of a crime, then its a witch hunt.

If Strzok started with Trump and then investigated for evidence and a crime, that speaks for itself.

Boils down this this unanswered question, as what level of flawed evidence is acceptable, if the investigation subject is the correct one?

“You wrote about it! It’s now public! Who is Corn? Who is Simpson?” Jordan said.

Some say that the entire Muller investigation is trying to run cover for this, as well as to put leverage on people with evidence against Hillary's corruption and silence them.

I guess we'll see, as the facade appears to be cracking. Whether the news media will pay attention to the important facts and report them, is rather doubtful.

Yeah, the left cries wold an awful lot. But if one looks closely, the left end up doing that which they are accusing other of typically 10 times worse.

 

[NonoBadDog]

We have spies all over the world. I guess we're all hypocritical dumb****s for trying to root them out here in the U.S. and if they're citizens, charging them with crimes involving the death penalty. Makes sense, or it's the dumbest talking point of all time - I'll go with the latter myself.



That's nonsense. The defendants wanted to see Mueller's case with zero intention of any of them actually presenting themselves for a trial and possible conviction and jail term.

Where did I ever say that I didn't think we shouldn't weed out spies? Please direct me to that statement in my post.

I noticed you ignored the inconvenient parts where our govt gave money to a NGO to oust Netanyahu. Do you think that was ethically right? I think that it's hypocritical to try to screw the other guy and then throw a tantrum when someone else does the same thing to us.

So far Mueller has produced squat as far as any links Trump colluding with anyone. Mueller has said that they won't produce any evidence that has to do with Trump colluding in the Manafort trial. He handed Cohen off to the DOJ. When Mueller handed out the first batch of indictments the defendant asked for discovery and Mueller did everything he could to delay the charges. When that didn't happen he did what he could to avoid discovery. Discovery is necessary in any court proceedings in our courts, whether it's a criminal or divorce court. It was lame. They didn't expect anyone from Russia to answer the charges but it happened and they were caught with their pants down and weren't ready with their case.

 

[veritas1]

"Intentionally steered our outcome?"

Not quite. That has been an ongoing claim from your side even before there was any Mueller investigation. That the ONLY way Trump could have won was by Russian support.

Yet there is NO evidence that this Russian action actually had any tangible effect on voting, such that it "steered the outcome" and caused Trump to win.

Meanwhile, if you recall, the DNC information hacks were all verifiably true; and I said back in 2016 prior to the election...what matter the source if the information is true?

Hillary was a bad candidate, Trump busted his ass in old-school "whistle-stop" campaigning that motivated voters to give him their electoral college votes in places the Democrats were so sure they were going to win they hardly bothered to even try to campaign.

Stop acting like the election was stolen, that dog don't hunt.

The Democrats steered the election to Trump. They did so by hamstringing Bernie and guaranteeing Hill the nomination. Hill was no match for Trump when it came to stamina and having a cohesive message. Add in that she's horribly unlikable and you can see why Trump prevailed.

 

[Goshin]

Anyone remember the story of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

I found the shortest video version for your edification:

(Warning: Foul language.)



I bring this up because that's how I see many on the Progressive-Left and in the MSM acting ever since President Trump was elected.

Story after story about how some action by the Mueller investigation, or revelation by some anonymous information source, or even some side-show (like Stormy Daniels) is going to be "the wolf" that eats Trump, proving once and for all Trump stole the election through some dastardly trick.

That he'll finally be impeached, and the world will be all roses and sunshine again.

Yet each time the "Wolf! Wolf!" turns out to be nothing; a false alarm which raised hopes then had to be quickly dropped. Subsequently a new "revelation" occurs, and "Wolf! Wolf!" is cried loudly and clearly again only to end up with no wolf after all.

Most recently it is the indictment of 12 Russian GRU agents, one of whom pretended to be a Romanian hacker using the name Guccifer 2.0.

Apparently, per our wolf-crying peers, Roger Stone is now the new "certain connection" to Russian collusion which will finally tie all the loose strings together to oust Trump so that truth, justice, and the American Way will prevail. :roll:

Yet it all remains (as usual) blatant speculation and conspiracy theory touted as "Truth!" :yes:

Has anyone thought that it might be better to simply let the investigation run it's course?

That IF any actual tie to the President or his Administration FACTUALLY comes to light, and indictments are presented stating so, THEN would be the time to shout that a "Wolf!" has entered the fold?

Until then, all this "crying wolf" sounds like desperately bored and frustrated shepherd boys trying to keep relevant when they know there is no actual wolf.

Just like in The Boy Who Cried Wolf, if something ever does show up, the townspeople will just ignore it because they have no reason to believe you anymore.

Many people, including myself, are already there. Hence our silence when a new Anti-Administration thread is posted in the Forum which becomes an echo-chamber for the wolf-criers. :coffeepap:

Honestly I stopped paying attention several Wolves ago.

If the day comes they've got something real, solid and proven, everyone will know about it in short order. There will be actual charges and a real impeachment.

Until then, I have more important things to do.


(and I say this as someone who never liked Trump, even when he was wildly popular years ago; who didn't vote for him in the primary, and wouldn't have voted for him in the general had there been a reasonable alternative. I'm just tired of the obvious bull****.)