Donald Trump presidency discussion thread V

aloyisious

Listening to Barr's interviews on tv over the past few days, it seems that, despite them having worked together in the DOJ in the past and Barr saying they were old family friends, Barr has been backing off on the friendship. Another gent from both of Mueller and Barrs working past in the DOJ was one of a two- person panel on CNN last night and was dismissive of Muellers work record there. Barr was senior to Mueller in the DOJ at that time like in the present.

duploelabs

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Trump has now tweeted that he doesn't want Mueller speaking to Congress at all, despite saying previously that he'd leave it for Barr to decide.

So now expect the mud slinging against Mueller's bona fides to ramp up over the coming days.

Perfectly reasonable action to inhibit the man who you claim exhonerates you completely, the actions of an innocent man

everlast75

Mueller is finishing up soon IIRC.

When he's no longer an employee of the Department of Justice, Trump can have no say.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

When he's no longer an employee of the Department of Justice, Trump can have no say.

I wonder about that!

As Mueller's role was that of a Special Counsel did he not operate within the confines of DoJ, and actually work for the DoJ? Surely therefore, if Barr decides that his work product belongs to the DoJ, and if Barr refused to allow Mueller to testify before the Committee, Muller can be silenced????

I dont have the answer, but I expect that Barr will not be allowing Muller to do anything to undercut him anytime soon...

manual_man

Mueller testifying could turn out a lot worse for Democrats than it would for Republicans. I think Trump is goading the Democrats to get Mueller to testify, and they'll probably fall for it like they usually do. I hope he testifies and we get all the answers we can.

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

By way of underlining your last statement, with which I fully agree, it seems to me that you don't "take much notice in general" of what anyone says here if/when they present facts that rebut spurious points you just throw out and then can't stand over. Re- presenting unsubstantiated talking points a la Laura Ingraham or Sean Hannity, rather than fact-based reports a la Shepard Smith or Judge Napolitano (just to keep things in the Fox News realm) adds nothing to intelligent debate here.

That's great. I don't watch Fox news, or any news station regularly. In fact if you check my post history I've lambasted people like Sean Hannity. I draw my own conclusions, I don't need people to do it for me. How did the Russian collusion work out in the end with all your great sources?

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

That's great. I don't watch Fox news, or any news station regularly.

If you started listening to some news you'd be better informed

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

If you started listening to some news you'd be better informed

Who would you recommend, Rachel Maddow?

One of the only decent sites is thehill.com, most if not all of the rest is sensationalized nonsense peddling clickbait to useful idiots.

TomOnBoard

peddlelies wrote: »

That's great. I don't watch Fox news, or any news station regularly. I draw my own conclusions, I don't need people to do it for me. How did the Russian collusion work out in the end with all your great sources?

Thanks for that clarification.. Now that you've admitted that your 'contributions' here are not based on any news reporting at all, it probably explains why they appear so Ill-informed and not based on any facts.

On that basis, I see absolutely no value in even reading future posts from you, as they simply waste my time.

peddlelies

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Thanks for that clarification.. Now that you've admitted that your 'contributions' here are not based on any news reporting at all, it probably explains why they appear so Ill-informed and not based on any facts.

On that basis, I see absolutely no value in even reading future posts from you, as they simply waste my time.

I do read/listen to the news, I just pay no attention to opinion shows.

You're the one who said I'm glued to Hannity/Laura and that is a false smear, now you're taking the moral high ground, so be it. I base my opinion on the topic in question to those released texts and IG Horrowitz report/testimony.

peddlelies

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1125057816992145414?s=19

And this is why Mueller, McGhan need to appear before the House.

Its hard to compete with twitter when the alternative is to ask people to read 400+ pages

This is what your originally said

"I'll 100% accept the conclusions of the Mueller report".

Barr releases the conclusions, then you freak out saying you want to see the full report.

Then Barr releases the entire report to anyone who wants to see it in congress, and to the public the full report albeit with 10% redaction's on grand jury information.

Now you're giving out that the report is too long so people won't read it. Do you have any idea about how avoid of morals you portray yourself?

It's the same as the Democrats in those hearings.

"Barr didn't release the Mueller 16 pages on conclusions, he's hiding something!"

*10 days later Barr releases the entire report*

Vile vile politics.

EltonJohn69

AOC is really impressive in that new Netflix documentary. Future president ?

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

Who would you recommend, Rachel Maddow?

One of the only decent sites is thehill.com, most if not all of the rest is sensationalized nonsense peddling clickbait to useful idiots.

I would definitely recommend Rachel Maddow

Based on what you've shown on this forum I fear it might be a bit hard for you to follow however

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I would definitely recommend Rachel Maddow

Based on what you've shown on this forum I fear it might be a bit hard for you to follow however

Yeah you're grand. I'd be questioning my own intelligence if I continued to follow someone who's literally sold a lie for two years straight to garner ratings. Not only my intelligence but also any inkling of integrity or decency.

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

Yeah you're grand. I'd be questioning my own intelligence if I continued to follow someone who's literally sold a lie for two years straight to garner ratings. Not only my intelligence but also any inkling of integrity or decency.

You aren't the only person who's questioning your intelligence, believe me

8 Chan and Infowars seems more your level

Seems to fit perfectly with your username too

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

You aren't the only person who's questioning your intelligence, believe me

8 Chan seems more your level

Seems to fit perfectly with your username too

Self-examination isn't a trait often found, but clearly in your case it's lacking entirely.

manual_man

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

AOC is really impressive in that new Netflix documentary. Future president ?

Probably not, but if so then her prediction of the world ending in 12 years could be accurate

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

Self-examination isn't a trait often found, but clearly in your case it's lacking entirely.

A Trump sycophant accusing anybody else of lacking self-examination is quite hilarious

20Cent

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

AOC is really impressive in that new Netflix documentary. Future president ?

She would be great, hope it happens.

hill16bhoy

20Cent wrote: »

She would be great, hope it happens.

The US Congress needs about another 300 like her

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

A Trump sycophant accusing anybody else of lacking self-examination is quite hilarious

Excuse me, I've said Trump has had mafia ties and has a very shady business background, and his mental state is questionable.

All I've said is that the media overplayed their hand with the Russia stuff and I didn't believe it happened.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

The US Congress needs about another 300 like her

Why does Cortez have a 30% approval rating in NYC?

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

Excuse me, I've said Trump has had mafia ties and has a very shady business background, and his mental state is questionable.

All I've said is that the media overplayed their hand with the Russia stuff and I didn't believe it happened.

So presumably you're calling on here for his impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution

Or not

All you've spewed here is standard fanboi sycophancy straight out of the Twitter comment sections of far right conspiracy theorists

manual_man

20Cent wrote: »

She would be great, hope it happens.

She's dumb as two planks. Green New Deal just showed how out of touch she is with reality. If even attempted on a small scale to implement, there would be absolutely riots on the street. I don't underestimate her however. She's extremely media savvy and understands very well how to appeal to emotion(rather than reason), something which is increasingly common in the modern day left. I also think it's very dangerous, however. Throw reason out the window at your peril. Indulging hysteria and the common enemy identity politics the left has adopted can end nowhere good unless it is checked. I certainly don't dismiss AOC's popularity, but i think she would be an unmitigated disaster if elected president, not just for the U.S.A., but for the wider world.

peddlelies

hill16bhoy wrote: »

So presumably you're calling on here for his impeachment and subsequent criminal prosecution

Or not

All you've spewed here is standard fanboi sycophancy straight out of the Twitter comment sections of far right conspiracy theorists

Oh, so saying there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government is far right conspiracy nonsense.

Got it.

rossie1977

manual_man wrote: »

She's dumb as two planks. Green New Deal just showed how out of touch she is with reality. If even attempted on a small scale to implement, there would be absolutely riots on the street. I don't underestimate her however. She's extremely media savvy and understands very well how to appeal to emotion(rather than reason), something which is increasingly common in the modern day left. I also think it's very dangerous, however. Throw reason out the window at your peril. Indulging hysteria and the common enemy identity politics the left has adopted can end nowhere good unless it is checked. I certainly don't dismiss AOC's popularity, but i think she would be an unmitigated disaster if elected president, not just for the U.S.A., but for the wider world.

Riots for what reason and by whom?

No sane person will riot because they are guaranteed a job with better wages, better vacation leave, high quality health care that's affordable, affordable housing, education available to everyone, world class public transportation. It's basically the same thing FDR proposed in 1944

40% of Americans can't even cover a $400 debt currently, the middle class has been totally wiped out since 1980. A Green deal like AOC is proposing would be welcomed with open arms by half the country right off the bat, Republican and Democrat.

manual_man

rossie1977 wrote: »

Riots for what reason and by whom?

No sane person will riot because they are guaranteed a job with better wages, better vacation leave, high quality health care, affordable housing, education available to everyone, world class public transportation. It's basically the same thing FDR proposed in 1944

Think the yellow vest protests in France. But way worse.

The Green New Deal is fantasy stuff. Prohibitively expensive, when the national debt is already way out of control. And nothing is guaranteed in life, unless you adopt full on communism, in which case all that is guaranteed is misery and being in constant fear of the State. Capitalism of course isn't perfect, but it's track record offers the best standard of life. Communism 'sounds' lovely, and regularly suckers people in, but time and again it has proven ineffectual. It simply doesn't deliver on it's promises. Or anywhere close for that matter. Dependance is being taught on the left, that government is the answer to all your problems. This would suit those who want dominance in government and submission of the general populace. It's antithetical to freedom however. Antithetical to independence, individual liberty. Are you really keen to throw that away? Because that's more than likely the road ahead if someone like AOC is elected president.

jochenstacker

^^^^^^^^
Funny how the national debt suddenly becomes important again when it's the Democrats running for office?
When Trump throws a few more trillions onto the bonfire it's whooping and hollering from certain people.
AOC really has the Rs shaking in their boots, because then hate propaganda against her is unreal.
I hope she wins purely for the reason that so many "lovely" people will choke on their cornflakes.*

edit:
*I know. It's "sticking it to them libtards" in reverse. Feck it. They can enjoy the shoe on the other foot for a few years. They won't see the irony, but it'll be fun watching them lose their sh"*t.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

One person banned and several others sailing close to the wind. Less bickering, more debate please

duploelabs

peddlelies wrote: »

Why does Cortez have a 30% approval rating in NYC?

Same tactic you used when Kamala Harris was questioning Barr, but I guess you've no reason to bring the approval rating up again right?