US Elections (& Politics) :)

As I recall, Mr. Mueller's main conclusion was summed up in his statement:

'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Under the rules he had to work with all he could do was to pass the findings on to Congress, assuming I expect that they would take the ball and run with it, only to then witness a spineless Senate bow to their master and fail to act. Am I missing something??
Yawn
 
Appreciate the recommendation as to what I should have said. But, I'll pass...

I didn't realize you knew me well enough to conclude that I am "just another triggered liberal". But reading between the lines here, I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you just might have something against Liberals in general. That so?

I guess it all depends on one's definition. Let's go to the Google Machine and see what it comes up with. Ah-- first couple of search results look pretty accurate to me:

LIBERAL
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.


LIBERAL
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

What exactly bothers you about these definitions? Wait.. don't tell me! Let me guess... I'd say that you have your very own, customized definition of the term tailor made to fit nicely into your own personal prejudices and world view. Am I right???
Of course, you fully understand that I am talking about the common-language usage, as opposed to Classical Liberalism, which espouses true liberty. Liberal-Leftists today are the antonym of Classical Liberalism, and the two concepts are effectively mutually exclusive. Why? Because the current breed of leftist liberals within the Democrat party don't want Liberty. Just the opposite-- they want to IMPOSE their beliefs, their doctrine, their lifestyle, their daily behaviors upon everyone else around them. They believe the Right to Free Speech is also the Right to Never-Be-Offended, and they are prepared to BAN and OUTLAW anything that might possibly offend them. That is not Liberty, it is tyranny, and likely imposed via the kinds of fascist tactics of the likes een recently in use by ANTIFA.

Let me know if you need any other clarifications. Quiz on Friday. ;)
 
Appreciate the recommendation as to what I should have said. But, I'll pass...

I didn't realize you knew me well enough to conclude that I am "just another triggered liberal". But reading between the lines here, I'm starting to get the distinct impression that you just might have something against Liberals in general. That so?

I guess it all depends on one's definition. Let's go to the Google Machine and see what it comes up with. Ah-- first couple of search results look pretty accurate to me:

LIBERAL
open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
"they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

(of education) concerned mainly with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.


LIBERAL
Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support free markets, free trade, limited government, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), capitalism, democracy, secularism, gender equality, racial equality, internationalism, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion.

What exactly bothers you about these definitions? Wait.. don't tell me! Let me guess... I'd say that you have your very own, customized definition of the term tailor made to fit nicely into your own personal prejudices and world view. Am I right???
This is todays Far Left...
Election Interference : Google purges Breitbart and other Conservative Outlets from search results

Thousands of "Biden" articles hidden
 
Last edited:
As I recall, Mr. Mueller's main conclusion was summed up in his statement:

'If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so'

Under the rules he had to work with all he could do was to pass the findings on to Congress, assuming I expect that they would take the ball and run with it, only to then witness a spineless Senate bow to their master and fail to act. Am I missing something??

That is what I figured. You do not have a clue to the latest exculpatory evidence or all that has transpired with all the documentation that has come to light. All you are doing is parroting what the msm wants you to hear. Everything was based on the Christopher Steele dossier which was paid for by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and that has been proven to be fake. Steele's "source" for the whole thing was from someone who worked at the Brooking's Institute. The FISA warrants were based on fake information. Hell, Mueller had no clue as to who or what Fusion GPS was. He was nothing but a figure head. Even the FBI at the time had serious doubts about the Steele dossier but went ahead with the 4 FISA warrants anyways.

 
Last edited:
BREAKING: Antifa Terrorist Who Threw Bomb at Federal Agents in Portland is Identified — BY HIS GRANDMOTHER!

The bomber has been identified — Thanks to his grandma!

His leftist grandmother bought him the vest online.

She wrote a review on the product at Hibbett.com.

 
BREAKING: Over 100 Police Agencies Pull Out Of Agreements To Guard DNC Convention

More than 100 law enforcement agencies have reportedly pulled out of security agreements to send personnel to help with security at the Democratic National Convention next month in part because they are concerned about recent efforts to limit law enforcement’s use of tear gas and pepper spray in responding to violent riots.

Milwaukee Police Chief Alfonso Morales was ordered last month to change the department’s policies to ban the use of tear gas and pepper spray.

 
That is what I figured. You do not have a clue to the latest exculpatory evidence or all that has transpired with all the documentation that has come to light. All you are doing is parroting what the msm wants you to hear. Everything was based on the Christopher Steele dossier which was paid for by the Hillary Clinton Campaign and that has been proven to be fake. Steele's "source" for the whole thing was from someone who worked at the Brooking's Institute. The FISA warrants were based on fake information. Hell, Mueller had no clue as to who or what Fusion GPS was. He was nothing but a figure head. Even the FBI at the time had serious doubts about the Steele dossier but went ahead with the 4 FISA warrants anyways.

Dude you just threw a whole slew of new names at the kid. Take it easy on him. Baby steps.
 
Just don't take the weekly NY Times quiz :lmao: Even that's biased

Of course, you fully understand that I am talking about the common-language usage, as opposed to Classical Liberalism, which espouses true liberty. Liberal-Leftists today are the antonym of Classical Liberalism, and the two concepts are effectively mutually exclusive. Why? Because the current breed of leftist liberals within the Democrat party don't want Liberty. Just the opposite-- they want to IMPOSE their beliefs, their doctrine, their lifestyle, their daily behaviors upon everyone else around them. They believe the Right to Free Speech is also the Right to Never-Be-Offended, and they are prepared to BAN and OUTLAW anything that might possibly offend them. That is not Liberty, it is tyranny, and likely imposed via the kinds of fascist tactics of the likes een recently in use by ANTIFA.

Let me know if you need any other clarifications. Quiz on Friday. ;)
 
Trump quote of the day - the "Liar in Chief" will lie about just anything!

WASHINGTON — An hour before Dr. Anthony S. Fauci threw the first pitch at the season opener between the New York Yankees and the Washington Nationals, President Trump stood on the briefing room stage at the White House and declared that he, too, had been invited to throw out his own opening pitch.
“Randy Levine is a great friend of mine from the Yankees,” Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

Of course its not true - the Yankees have stated absolutely there was no invite. lmao
 
Trump quote of the day - the "Liar in Chief" will lie about just anything!

... Mr. Trump, referring to the president of the baseball team, told reporters on Thursday as Dr. Fauci was preparing to take the mound. “And he asked me to throw out the first pitch, and I think I’m doing that on Aug. 15 at Yankee Stadium.”

Of course its not true - the Yankees have stated absolutely there was no invite. lmao

Well.... someone is lying there. The Yankees are probably too Woke to have a sitting President come throw a ball... you know... because Orange Man Bad.....
 
Ah-- I see. I did not realize there was a sdkid version of liberalism! I'll have to do some more research and hopefully can find exactly when the "traditional" definition of the word was changed to fit a specific narrative one end of the political spectrum has created. ;)
Sorry you didn't understand that there are two different working definitions for "liberal" these days. I am a wealth of knowledge sir. Let me know if you have any questions.
 
This is what I figured. When you can't defend the indefensible attack the source.

All you are doing is parroting what the president's defenders are claiming by going back to the same old, stale talking points in an attempt to discredit the results. Almost like you've cut and pasted a paragraph from trump Tweet. ;)

Of course DT's team jumped on this "attack the source" strategy. GOP Senators dutifully formed investigative committees, Barr sent investigators to investigate. What became of all this? Well, not a lot. Each side of course claimed vindication and nothing with respect to the actual findings has changed.

Question: I'm not claiming that this has much of anything to do with your position on the matter but have you read the actual Mueller report? I think that no matter what each side wants to believe, that it would be constructive if somehow everyone knew exactly what it contains rather than a brief, exculpatory summary put forward by Barr.
We are all past the Mueller report. We DO want to know all about the politicized abuse of the FISA court process though-- don't you?

btw--- in your post here, it really sounds like you're attacking the source...

1596038263081.png