Barr tells Trump to stop tweeting about Stone case; juror calls it 'appalling'

[winslowsjardine]

8 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Basically Barr got wind of over a thousand prosecutors, both dems and repubs about to give him a huge vote of no confidence.

 

The whitehouse was told before the interview what he was going to say, hence this is the first instance of trump not going crazy when someone says anything against him.

 

So all barr is doing is telling trump that he needs to get the rank and file subdued.

That does seem to explain why Trump hasn't exploded over this.

[Chiphigh]

22 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I'll bet he gets some of his news from this guy below.  It seems right-leaning people are more susceptible to fake news.  They want to believe pretty much anything that supports their narrative.  And these creators of fake news know it.  They're making money off of the ignorance.

 

[Washington (AFP) - Christopher Blair produces false stories he insists are easily identifiable as satire rather than news. His pages can rack up millions of views, and at least part of that audience believes the material is true.]

[Blair -- a self-described "liberal troll" and political activist -- says he knows what to write for his right-wing "target audience" through years of "being embedded in their world."]

[He does not hold that audience in high regard.]

["They live on... fear and hate and misinformation and very specific storylines that everybody knows aren't true except for them," he told AFP.]

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/master-false-news-gives-wing-americans-headlines-believe-012738936.html

 

There you go making another ridiculous assertion. 

Are there any leftists that don't have the power to read minds and then pretend that they have the "facts"? 

 

[Berkshire]

7 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

There you go making another ridiculous assertion. 

Are there any leftists that don't have the power to read minds and then pretend that they have the "facts"? 

 

It's not a matter of "reading minds" but rather reading some of the posts on TV written by Trump supporters.  Some of the stuff you guys believe are beyond the pale....alternate universe sort of stuff.  

[Sujo]

13 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

There you go making another ridiculous assertion. 

Are there any leftists that don't have the power to read minds and then pretend that they have the "facts"? 

 

Yes, they are called trump supporters.

[Chiphigh]

5 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

It's not a matter of "reading minds" but rather reading some of the posts on TV written by Trump supporters.  Some of the stuff you guys believe are beyond the pale....alternate universe sort of stuff.  

Right, so your opinion is based on a superior intelligence and insight granted by your ideology...... In your mind. 

 

Keep believing that. 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

Right, so your opinion is based on a superior intelligence and insight granted by your ideology...... In your mind. 

 

Keep believing that. 

Nope. Based on the facts. Not the alternative ones.

[bendejo]

50 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

I'll bet he gets some of his news from this guy below.  It seems right-leaning people are more susceptible to fake news.  They want to believe pretty much anything that supports their narrative.  And these creators of fake news know it.  They're making money off of the ignorance.

 

They have certain tropes that get brought up and when they do then I know it's someone to write off.  And sites like the ones mentioned in the article are the fountain.  And look at fortunes they've amassed!  If not for Clinton and Obama, Rush and Glen Beck would still be doing used car radio ads in Podunk.  Alex Jones would be working in a car wash. 

 

My fave is Michelle Obama wants to be president!  That one can simply be written off as uninformed, as anyone who had been paying attention knows Michelle couldn't wait to get out of the fishbowl, but I guess Fox didn't report on that.  But no, they really like to go on about it as a looming threat.  And then the screaming fetuses at the abortion clinics.  The stuff about human trafficking (they LOVE that one), I suspect there may be someone in the higher reaches of the right who is actually up to something with that, and the diversion is to put it out in the fools' fodder and blame it on Hillary.

 

They also especially have it in for the female pols.  AOC has made Hillary's life a little easier by simply sharing the load. 

"Lock her up!"

"Who?"

"Who do you have?"

(a slight to Marlon Brando in The Wild One for that)

 

Smarten up guys, you have nothing to lose.

 

Edited February 17, 2020 by bendejo

[Chiphigh]

2 minutes ago, bendejo said:

 

They have certain tropes that get brought up and when they do then I know it's someone to write off.  And sites like the ones mentioned in the article are the fountain.  And look at fortunes they've amassed!  If not for Clinton and Obama Rush and Glen Beck would still be doing used car radio ads in Podunk.  Alex Jones would be working in a car wash. 

 

My fave is Michelle Obama wants to be president!  That one can simply be written off as uninformed, as anyone who had been paying attention knows Michelle couldn't wait to get out of the fishbowl, but I guess Fox didn't report on that.  But no, they really like to go on about it as a looming threat.  And then the screaming fetuses at the abortion clinics.  The stuff about human trafficking (they LOVE that one), I suspect there may be someone in the higher reaches of the right who is actually up to something with that, and the diversion is to put it out in the fools' fodder and blame it on Hillary.

 

They also especially have it in for the female pols.  AOC has made Hillary's life a little easier by simply sharing the load. 

"Lock her up!"

"Who?"

"Who do you have?"

(a slight to Marlon Brando in The Wild One for that)

 

Smarten up guys, you have nothing to lose.

 

Quite a bit of assumptions and generalizations here, but then again, if it helps you push a narrative, it certainly must be true... To you. 

[Saint Nick]

On 2/15/2020 at 2:43 PM, Redoubt said:

Oh pleeeaass.  The comments some have posted reveal sheer subjective lack of any knowledge of facts and true history.  A waste of time to even read so many.  After scanning just a few in a row I find that my hope to engage in objective conversations and exchanges is a fantasy for the most part.

 

The 'mob mentality' seems to be too prevalent on this otherwise excellent 'news' forum for Expats.  

 

Oh, and before you begin to send a "blast" in my direction, please do the following first; for you will receive pearls of knowledge:  Search the Internet for "old interviews of Donald Trump"  These begin when he was 34 in 1980.  They are all previously televised and if you have the maturity to sit and just "listen" you will find that this career businessman and builder has held the same 'Nationalistic' values and passion his entire life.  He is apparently no political chameleon like too many others. 

 

He has given up major business opportunities to devote 8 years to trying to save the nation and Republic he apparently loves; as do many of his own fellow citizens.

 

Most major 'career politicians' in the USA become "rich" while in office; and this President is already rich and gives his salary to charity.

 

Anyone who has studied the History of the USA will ascertain that his successes are truly exemplary and his pragmatic leadership style will help to prevent America from becoming yet another failed Socialistic country.

Are you aiming at some of the vacent positions in the WH?

 

[simple1]

6 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

You mean factual examples of the overwhelming percentage of leftists who run the media? 

In other words no facts to backup your claim to my query re your post below...

 

The only threat to the democracy is the ideological left deeply rooted in the bloated beauracracy that would purposely leak and lie to pedal an agenda. 

[Chiphigh]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

In other words no facts to backup your claim to my query re your post below...

 

The only threat to the democracy is the ideological left deeply rooted in the bloated beauracracy that would purposely leak and lie to pedal an agenda. 

You mean like McCabe being found guilty of leaking to the press? Or James Wolfe found guilty for leaking classified Information to the press? Or the state department and fbi withholding exculpatory evidence in a fisa warrant? 

 

That kind of facts you mean? 

[Sujo]

23 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

You mean like McCabe being found guilty of leaking to the press? Or James Wolfe found guilty for leaking classified Information to the press? Or the state department and fbi withholding exculpatory evidence in a fisa warrant? 

 

That kind of facts you mean? 

Mccabe was not found guilty of anything. They dropped all charges.

 

There is no evidence the fbi witheld anything.

 

Of course repubs never leak. No one at the whitehouse in trumps inner circle ever leaks. Dont you recall the reason trump wanted his call made super secret is because he cant trust his own appointments.

[simple1]

44 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

You mean like McCabe being found guilty of leaking to the press? Or James Wolfe found guilty for leaking classified Information to the press? Or the state department and fbi withholding exculpatory evidence in a fisa warrant? 

 

That kind of facts you mean? 

Members of the deeply ideological left - LOL - really need to lift yourself out of the sewer of misinformation by trump. McCabe was a Republican e.g. leaked info about Clinton. The feds are not going to prosecute for leaks. 

 

https://nypost.com/2020/02/14/ex-fbi-deputy-director-andrew-mccabe-wont-be-charged-for-role-in-leaks-to-media/

 

Wolfe was never charged for leaking classified info.

 

Some FISA doco process was acknowledged incorrect, but not your alleged criminal conspiracy throughout the bureaucracy. Only one low level lawyer is being investigated for "doctoring a document used to build the agency's application for FISA surveillance on Page"

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/23/politics/fisa-carter-page-warrants/index.html

Edited February 17, 2020 by simple1

[bristolboy]

53 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

You mean like McCabe being found guilty of leaking to the press? Or James Wolfe found guilty for leaking classified Information to the press? Or the state department and fbi withholding exculpatory evidence in a fisa warrant? 

 

That kind of facts you mean? 

Wow! McCabe was found guilty of something? In what alternative universe was this trial held?

 

As for Carter Page...yes the FBI was determined by the IG to have withheld exculpatory evidence.

But he also found that this was not a politically biased decision. In addition, this is the first time a FISA proceeding was open to such scrutiny. Who knows how many cases of similar abuses exist? Keep in mind that the FISA courts were created by the conservative Bush administration with the enthusiastic support of most conservatives. It was liberals who warned that they were easily subject to abuse. And such has turned out to be the case. 

 

As for Wolfe, he was the Security Director for the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was not an employee of the executive branch. So what are you on about?

Correction: I should have written that the use of the FISA courts was greatly expanded during the Bush Administration. But they were always opposed by such organizations as the ACLU precisely because they were so open to abuse of due process.

Edited February 17, 2020 by bristolboy

[heybruce]

12 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Quite a bit of assumptions and generalizations here, but then again, if it helps you push a narrative, it certainly must be true... To you. 

Assumptions and generalizations---you mean like the assumption that everyone who opposes Trump, including Republicans who hold onto pre-2016 Republican positions, is a leftist?

 

That's both an assumption and generalization, one commonly made by Trump supporters. 

 

After making the leftist assumption the Trump supporters then go binary, assuming all people they define as leftist share the same position on all issues, and it is always the most leftist position imaginable. 

 

I will make a generalization about Trump supporters:  Trump supporters rarely rely on established print media sources that have spent many decades earning a reputation for credible reporting.  They generally prefer Fox News pundits and conspiracy theory websites. 

[Langsuan Man]

22 hours ago, Sujo said:

Yes, they are called trump supporters.

I personally feel the term deplorables is a more accurate description 

[Tug]

17 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

I personally feel the term deplorables is a more accurate description 

Or perhaps un encumbered by truth facts science and the thought process lol

[Chiphigh]

12 hours ago, heybruce said:

Assumptions and generalizations---you mean like the assumption that everyone who opposes Trump, including Republicans who hold onto pre-2016 Republican positions, is a leftist?

 

That's both an assumption and generalization, one commonly made by Trump supporters. 

 

After making the leftist assumption the Trump supporters then go binary, assuming all people they define as leftist share the same position on all issues, and it is always the most leftist position imaginable. 

 

I will make a generalization about Trump supporters:  Trump supporters rarely rely on established print media sources that have spent many decades earning a reputation for credible reporting.  They generally prefer Fox News pundits and conspiracy theory websites. 

You mean that the "established" print media that is staffed by 90 percent democrats. Can you tell me when was the last time the nut endorsed a republican? You can't be this blind to not see the bias. 

[Berkshire]

4 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

You mean that the "established" print media that is staffed by 90 percent democrats. Can you tell me when was the last time the nut endorsed a republican? You can't be this blind to not see the bias. 

Professional journalists tend to be highly educated, intelligent people of high moral standards.  So it makes sense that they wouldn't typically endorse Republicans.  

[Chiphigh]

4 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Professional journalists tend to be highly educated, intelligent people of high moral standards.  So it makes sense that they wouldn't typically endorse Republicans.  

What a load of unfounded nonsense. The arrogance is not surprising unfortunately. This is precisely the attitude that the democrats have. 

 

The pseudo intellectual preening is hilarious. 

. 

 

 

[bristolboy]

Federal Judges to Hold Emergency Meeting on Trump Admin. Interference in Politically Sensitive Cases

 

A national association of federal judges will hold an emergency meeting Wednesday after Justice Department officials intervened in the case involving a close confident of U.S. President Donald Trump.

The head of the independent Federal Judges Association, District Judge Cynthia Rufe, tells VOA the judges are "concerned about the attacks on individual judges" and it will be the main issue to be discussed.

Rufe declined to give any more details, but said the jurists "could not wait" until their spring meeting.

https://www.voanews.com/usa/federal-judges-hold-emergency-meeting-trump-admin-interference-politically-sensitive-cases

 

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

You mean that the "established" print media that is staffed by 90 percent democrats. Can you tell me when was the last time the nut endorsed a republican? You can't be this blind to not see the bias. 

Here's the difference between you and me; I'm not afraid to name names.  I read The Economist every week (I've been busy and am several weeks behind but I will catch up) and go through the BBC news app "Top Stories" almost every day.  I also read stories of interest I see on the internet if they come from credible sources, such as UPI, AP, Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NY Times, etc. 

 

I challenge you to tell us where you get your news.  I also challenge you to show credible evidence to support your "staffed by 90 percent democrats" claim.

 

Who is "the nut" you refer to?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Professional journalists tend to be highly educated, intelligent people of high moral standards.  So it makes sense that they wouldn't typically endorse Republicans.  

The Economist has endorsed 3 Republicans and 5 Democrats since 1980.  They couldn't bring themselves to endorse anyone in 1984 and 1988.  The 2004 election was something of a turning point for them, in a contest they described as "the incompetent or the incoherent" they endorsed John Kerry, and have endorsed Democrats ever since.

 

They will probably endorse a Democrat this year, but if it's Trump vs Sanders they may pass on the endorsement.

[Langsuan Man]

On 2/18/2020 at 9:08 AM, Tug said:

Or perhaps un encumbered by truth facts science and the thought process lol

Thanks for your contribution but no, it has to fit on a red hat