If you can't get Trump, go after Barr

[herb749]

I like unnamed sources.

NYT uses them all the time.

 

[PsyOps]

Again. Never made that claim.

Yeah, because you can't. But you sure seem to know "that Trump's only method of communicating with Barr is via Twitter".

Why does this bother people so much, that Trump tweets so much? What is it that escapes you people, that this is what people love about him? They love the transparency. Trump doesn't hide what he's thinking; and many of his thoughts that he expresses are the thoughts of a lot voters.

You, of all people Chris, being a so-called "libertarian", demanding transparency from our government; and when someone actually exercuses this, you reject it because you don't like the manner in which he exercises his transparency. Just because you demand transparency doesn't mean you get to define how it's done.

 

[Grumpy]

You, of all people Chris, being a so-called "libertarian", demanding transparency from our government; and when someone actually exercuses this, you reject it because you don't like the manner in which he exercises his transparency. Just because you demand transparency doesn't mean you get to define how it's done.

Maybe you didn't notice, but Chrissy is a LINO.

 

[Hijinx]

Barr said yesterday that he couldn't get his job done with Trump tweeting at him.
Problem is I see a lot of things that need to be done and Barr doesn't seem to be making thta effort.
He may be scraping at the edges, but he needs to go for blood.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Yeah, because you can't. But you sure seem to know "that Trump's only method of communicating with Barr is via Twitter".

Why does this bother people so much, that Trump tweets so much? What is it that escapes you people, that this is what people love about him? They love the transparency. Trump doesn't hide what he's thinking; and many of his thoughts that he expresses are the thoughts of a lot voters.

You, of all people Chris, being a so-called "libertarian", demanding transparency from our government; and when someone actually exercuses this, you reject it because you don't like the manner in which he exercises his transparency. Just because you demand transparency doesn't mean you get to define how it's done.

I think you need to put aside your beliefs of what I said and go back and read what actually happened.

 

[PsyOps]

I think you need to put aside your beliefs of what I said and go back and read what actually happened.

And I think you need to put aside your sentiments about Trump and go back and look at what he's actually accomplished that is good for this country. I've read enough of your stuff to know you just don't like the guy because he doesn't conform to your myopic of how a president should behave. Unlike you, I welcome this new age of president; where he rejects the stuffed-up, stately status quo on almost every level.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And I think you need to put aside your sentiments about Trump and go back and look at what he's actually accomplished that is good for this country. I've read enough of your stuff to know you just don't like the guy because he doesn't conform to your myopic of how a president should behave. Unlike you, I welcome this new age of president; where he rejects the stuffed-up, stately status quo on almost every level.

I never said anything about Trump's actions here.

All I did was point out facts surrounding the very specific quote in my post and you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Maybe you didn't notice, but Chrissy is a LINO.

How so?

Please, explain this one.

 

[PsyOps]

I never said anything about Trump's actions here.

All I did was point out facts surrounding the very specific quote in my post and you're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Either you're really forgetful, or you're a liar. Because I like you, I'll with the former

Never mind the silly idea that Trump's only method of communicating with Barr is via Twitter;

 

[PsyOps]

Maybe you didn't notice, but Chrissy is a LINO.

Libertarians cover all sorts of grounds. They don't take sides, as in republican/democrat. The problem I have with the party is, you can't pin down whether they stand for conservative or liberal ideals. I get their core tenets of individual liberty; but where does the party stand on the disperate values (conservative vs liberal) in this country?

Far be it for me to demand anyone choose R or D just because they are conservative or liberal. I considered joining the Libertarian Party at one point, until I talked to a guy who is a libertarian and his ideals were all over the place.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Either you're really forgetful, or you're a liar. Because I like you, I'll with the former

Never mind the silly idea that Trump's only method of communicating with Barr is via Twitter;

Great, now go back and read what you said.

But you sure seem to know "that Trump's only method of communicating with Barr is via Twitter".

These are two different statements and you're making a claim that I said something I never did.

Since folks on this forum must continually have their hands held throughout a conversation, let me walk you through it.

Had you gone back to Yooper's original post that GURPS quoted (and which I responded to), you'd see that there was an assertion that there's no way Barr and Trump could have colluded jet because Trump tweeted after Barr's decision.

GURPS made a snide remark about "FACTS".

I simply posted "facts" that we know. We know the time Trump tweeted (notice I never said anything about his Twitter frequency of overall subject of his Tweets). We know when the Amended Sentencing Memo was submitted. All I did was post both of those things and the quote you have in your reply.

Then, you go on some rant about things I never said because.

Who is the real liar here?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I considered joining the Libertarian Party at one point, until I talked to a guy who is a libertarian and his ideals were all over the place.

That's the point. There's simply no possible way to have 2 parties represent the interests of 350 million Americans.

The Libertarian Party allows, and encourages, people to have their own individual ideals without the party dictating them and advocates the govt. get out of the way so those same individuals can pursue life, liberty, and happiness as they see fit.

 

[PsyOps]

Great, now go back and read what you said.

I don't need to go back read my own stuff. You said "I never said anything about Trump's actions here." and I posted your own quote where you did say something about Trump's actions. Are you trying to pull a MidnightRider on me, where we get in this loop of crazy?

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I don't need to go back read my own stuff. You said "I never said anything about Trump's actions here." and I posted your own quote where you did say something about Trump's actions. Are you trying to pull a MidnightRider on me, where we get in this loop of crazy?

I think you need to read my stuff. Why I've had to explain this conversation (something that is available for you and everyone else to read) twice now to a bunch of adults that presumably have no language barriers is beyond me.

I stand by the fact that I never commented on Trump's actions. I posted his Tweet, the Memo, and the times of them when replying to someone else.

I'll point out again that the quote from me does not match what you said it did. Then you assumed I was the liar.

 

[PsyOps]

That's the point. There's simply no possible way to have 2 parties represent the interests of 350 million Americans.

The Libertarian Party allows, and encourages, people to have their own individual ideals without the party dictating them and advocates the govt. get out of the way so those same individuals can pursue life, liberty, and happiness as they see fit.

This should probably be a separate thread...

We've been doing the two-party system since nearly the founding of this country. It's not perfect, but it has worked pretty darned good for establishing the most powerful and wealthy country in the world.

When I think of the Libertarian Party, I think of the B-hai religion. They have basic tenets of do's and don't's, but the welcome all faiths into their religion. They recognize all gods as valid. While they have a belief in a higher spiritual being, they do not conclude that it is any one God that - say - Christianity or Islam believes in. And I find that counter intuitive, since these beliefs are so antithetical to each other.

How can a libertarian who is a conservative co-exist in the same party as a libertarian who is a flaming liberal? Can a liberal, who holds ideals that demand a government limit our liberties be a part of the Libertarian Party? I mean, nearly all that liberals stand for are antithetical to individual liberty.

 

[PsyOps]

I think you need to read my stuff. Why I've had to explain this conversation (something that is available for you and everyone else to read) twice now to a bunch of adults that presumably have no language barriers is beyond me.

I stand by the fact that I never commented on Trump's actions. I posted his Tweet, the Memo, and the times of them when replying to someone else.

I'll point out again that the quote from me does not match what you said it did. Then you assumed I was the liar.

Perhaps it's because you don't seem to understand what it means to comment on someone's actions, and you get your self all over the place trying to explain your way out of it. Your own words:

"Never mind the silly idea that Trump's only method of communicating with Barr is via Twitter"

You don't see this as a comment on Trump's actions?

And, if you go back and read my "liar" post, I did not call you a liar. It's bad form to lecture people over their reading skills when you seem to have challenges of your own in that arena.

 

[Spitfire]

This should probably be a separate thread...

We've been doing the two-party system since nearly the founding of this country. It's not perfect, but it has worked pretty darned good for establishing the most powerful and wealthy country in the world.

When I think of the Libertarian Party, I think of the B-hai religion. They have basic tenets of do's and don't's, but the welcome all faiths into their religion. They recognize all gods as valid. While they have a belief in a higher spiritual being, they do not conclude that it is any one God that - say - Christianity or Islam believes in. And I find that counter intuitive, since these beliefs are so antithetical to each other.

How can a libertarian who is a conservative co-exist in the same party as a libertarian who is a flaming liberal? Can a liberal, who holds ideals that demand a government limit our liberties be a part of the Libertarian Party? I mean, nearly all that liberals stand for are antithetical to individual liberty.

Greetings:

First off, I think you’re confusing “liberalism” with “progressiveism”. Sometimes “classical liberal” is used these days because conservatives have turned “liberal” into a pejorative. It’s not. It was liberalism that gave us our country and our founding principles and is the basis for libertarianism and ostensibly Libertarianism.

Also, do not confuse Libertarian with libertarian. The former is a money-hungry national party which seems to attract the misfits from the other two major national parties depending on who has pissed them off lately. The latter is a framework for solving problems and living free as an individual.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Perhaps it's because you don't seem to understand what it means to comment on someone's actions, and you get your self all over the place trying to explain your way out of it. Your own words:

"Never mind the silly idea that Trump's only method of communicating with Barr is via Twitter"

You don't see this as a comment on Trump's actions?

And, if you go back and read my "liar" post, I did not call you a liar. It's bad form to lecture people over their reading skills when you seem to have challenges of your own in that arena.

No, it was a sentiment directly and specifically about Yooper's comment. Which GURPS, the guy I was replying to, quoted.

I also didn't say you called me a liar. I said,

Then you assumed I was the liar.

. It was literally in your last post.

So, to answer your previous question, no, we won't go into a "loop of crazy" because I'm done repeating myself. This thread is 3 pages long and you've continually made up things that were not said and basing your presumptions and opinions on those falsehoods.

This should probably be a separate thread...

We've been doing the two-party system since nearly the founding of this country. It's not perfect, but it has worked pretty darned good for establishing the most powerful and wealthy country in the world.

When I think of the Libertarian Party, I think of the B-hai religion. They have basic tenets of do's and don't's, but the welcome all faiths into their religion. They recognize all gods as valid. While they have a belief in a higher spiritual being, they do not conclude that it is any one God that - say - Christianity or Islam believes in. And I find that counter intuitive, since these beliefs are so antithetical to each other.

How can a libertarian who is a conservative co-exist in the same party as a libertarian who is a flaming liberal? Can a liberal, who holds ideals that demand a government limit our liberties be a part of the Libertarian Party? I mean, nearly all that liberals stand for are antithetical to individual liberty.

And the 2 party system has gotten us where, recently? What have they both done that grants us greater individual liberty and less governmental intervention in our lives? Both sides growing farther apart in order to stick it to the other side while people who are middle of the road are screwed. We bicker back and forth while government continues to take power from the people. All people. But each side likes to claim it the others' fault.

How? They do it all the time. They recognize other individual's rights to believe what they want. You likely won't see a "flaming liberal" too often because most Libertarians believe in the 2A, and most "flaming libs" don't. A "flaming lib" who believes it's the government's job to do something like that is no Libertarian. Liberals are for drug law liberalization. Not "antiethical to individual liberty", but you're also making the leap that any liberal must be a "flaming liberal" and far left. I can see why you'd think that way given what I said earlier, about parties moving farther away from each other, but the reality is, flaming liberals will remain in the Democratic party.

 

[ginwoman]

Katie Pavlich basically laid out the timeline last night on The Five after talking to her contacts at DOJ. She said the whole review of Stone's sentencing started the week before. If I have it correct, the prosecutors were told to work with the new AAG to come up with a sentence request less than seven years. DOJ officials thought 7-9 was excessive. The prosecutors, instead of working with the new AAG, went straight to the judge and requested 7-9 years. DOJ then stepped in and took over. Then Trump tweeted.

Juan Williams basically called Katie a liar with the look on his face.

That stupid look on Juan's face and his eyes rolling around in his head. I have to change the channel.

 

[GURPS]

the assertion I was making, both Barr and Trump said the determination on Stone was made BEFORE Trump sent his tweets, accusations aside of malfeasance or interference from Democrats