Left-wing voter: "Make them pay big time for their excesses"

Sounds like you are just trying to identify the term and relate to it.

You get points for making an effort. I'll leave that point there.

It's an important one.

a reply to: EchoChamber

I am still reading the Vox link you provided, and I will read it thoroughly. If I'm mistaken, I always enjoy a chance to correct my own misconceptions

However, I am curious why Rosenstein is no longer considered reliable? If Rosenstein (who was willing to wire up on Trump) was compromised, why would Mueller's conclusion be above reproach?

Let me ask you this, if and when (I have no doubt *when*) Mueller does testify/make a statement will you accept his conclusions? If Mueller comes out and says "My investigation was not interfered with, and I was not blocked from taking any action I felt prudent in the course of the investigation" will that be accepted?

a reply to: EchoChamber

😆

98% of Democrats think a lower refund = a tax increase

Arithmetic at colleges today dictates stupidity and dumb-bellitis 😆

Standard College Graduate after 10 years post-degree:

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

I am still reading the Vox link you provided, and I will read it thoroughly. If I'm mistaken, I always enjoy a chance to correct my own misconceptions

However, I am curious why Rosenstein is no longer considered reliable? If Rosenstein (who was willing to wire up on Trump) was compromised, why would Mueller's conclusion be above reproach?

Let me ask you this, if and when (I have no doubt *when*) Mueller does testify/make a statement will you accept his conclusions? If Mueller comes out and says "My investigation was not interfered with, and I was not blocked from taking any action I felt prudent in the course of the investigation" will that be accepted?

That's an obsolete talking point.

Mueller won't say that.

Let me explain why I say that is obsolete...the right wing media pushed it forever and down my unsuspecting throat. And when the report was released, Barr kept it. He effing kept it. He didn't give me the option to decide..because he decided.

That's suspicious as hell and I can't believe that a conspiracy website doesn't think that's suspicious.

a reply to: EchoChamber

Well if that was directed to me, I sincerely appreciate that

And for what it is worth, you get points for coming here to engage with "the other side"

You aren't alone here, there are plenty of lefties on ATS running the gamut from progressives to moderates and anything in between. But we are one big ATS family. A dysfunctional family, sure. In any case, I am glad you decided to join up here. I really mean that EchoChamber

My name is Jack by the way, I usually go by JB. And despite our obvious differences in opinion, I hope you decide to stick around!

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: EchoChamber

😆

98% of Democrats think a lower refund = a tax increase

Arithmetic at colleges today dictates stupidity and dumb-bellitis 😆

Standard College Graduate after 10 years post-degree:

You're adorable.

a reply to: EchoChamber

EC, for what it is worth, I too want to see the report and its contents. I am rooting for some previously unknown judge that will decide public interest outweighs GJ secrecy rules and lays it all out in the open. The good, the bad and the ugly

I won't defend RW media any more than I defend the other partisan MSM sources. They all push an agenda that is transparent as it is dishonest, Fox is no exception to this. The credibility of our "news" shouldn't be dependent on what anchor is presenting it nor should we be forced into a box where we have to chose one or the other. I just can't figure out if it is a function of greed (ie: controversy sells) or an actual conspiracy to disinform, distract and divide

If the report is released tomorrow, I will personally cheer it on. If there is indeed a conspiracy to hide the truth and subvert justice, I want those responsible to face criminal penalties. No matter who it is

I am not a non-partisan source, and I don't blame you in the least for not taking my word or anyone else's for that matter. In this age of total information saturation and willful disinformation it is only reasonable (neigh an act of self-preservation) to vet sources and triple check information

Heck, I question my own beliefs almost constantly. Sometimes they are formed with the noblest of intentions on bad information, and when that happens I adjust to the reality not try to fit reality to my thinking. I am certainly not implying Barr is above suspicion either, his past (such as Ruby Ridge) gives me pause as well. I am just saying that a conspiracy becomes significantly more intricate (and easy to mess up) when more people get involved. In my opinion, I find it hard to believe that Rosenstein would betray Mueller and the United States (by subverting justice) or that Barr would stick a figurative knife in the back of his friend Bob Mueller's reputation

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

EC, for what it is worth, I too want to see the report and its contents. I am rooting for some previously unknown judge that will decide public interest outweighs GJ secrecy rules and lays it all out in the open. The good, the bad and the ugly

I won't defend RW media any more than I defend the other partisan MSM sources. They all push an agenda that is transparent as it is dishonest, Fox is no exception to this. The credibility of our "news" shouldn't be dependent on what anchor is presenting it nor should we be forced into a box where we have to chose one or the other. I just can't figure out if it is a function of greed (ie: controversy sells) or an actual conspiracy to disinform, distract and divide

If the report is released tomorrow, I will personally cheer it on. If there is indeed a conspiracy to hide the truth and subvert justice, I want those responsible to face criminal penalties. No matter who it is

I am not a non-partisan source, and I don't blame you in the least for not taking my word or anyone else's for that matter. In this age of total information saturation and willful disinformation it is only reasonable (neigh an act of self-preservation) to vet sources and triple check information

Heck, I question my own beliefs almost constantly. Sometimes they are formed with the noblest of intentions on bad information, and when that happens I adjust to the reality not try to fit reality to my thinking. I am certainly not implying Barr is above suspicion either, his past (such as Ruby Ridge) gives me pause as well. I am just saying that a conspiracy becomes significantly more intricate (and easy to mess up) when more people get involved. In my opinion, I find it hard to believe that Rosenstein would betray Mueller and the United States (by subverting justice) or that Barr would stick a figurative knife in the back of his friend Bob Mueller's reputation

Rosentien is not a friend.

Mueller and Barr are more closely related than Rosenstein.

That said. I don't see how the author of of Iran-Conttra cover up is someone who helps Mueller.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

EC, for what it is worth, I too want to see the report and its contents. I am rooting for some previously unknown judge that will decide public interest outweighs GJ secrecy rules and lays it all out in the open. The good, the bad and the ugly

I won't defend RW media any more than I defend the other partisan MSM sources. They all push an agenda that is transparent as it is dishonest, Fox is no exception to this. The credibility of our "news" shouldn't be dependent on what anchor is presenting it nor should we be forced into a box where we have to chose one or the other. I just can't figure out if it is a function of greed (ie: controversy sells) or an actual conspiracy to disinform, distract and divide

If the report is released tomorrow, I will personally cheer it on. If there is indeed a conspiracy to hide the truth and subvert justice, I want those responsible to face criminal penalties. No matter who it is

I am not a non-partisan source, and I don't blame you in the least for not taking my word or anyone else's for that matter. In this age of total information saturation and willful disinformation it is only reasonable (neigh an act of self-preservation) to vet sources and triple check information

Heck, I question my own beliefs almost constantly. Sometimes they are formed with the noblest of intentions on bad information, and when that happens I adjust to the reality not try to fit reality to my thinking. I am certainly not implying Barr is above suspicion either, his past (such as Ruby Ridge) gives me pause as well. I am just saying that a conspiracy becomes significantly more intricate (and easy to mess up) when more people get involved. In my opinion, I find it hard to believe that Rosenstein would betray Mueller and the United States (by subverting justice) or that Barr would stick a figurative knife in the back of his friend Bob Mueller's reputation

That's good to hear...

We're going to have to wait for the continuation...

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

The bulk of those charges were spanning the past decade and/or procedural crimes unrelated to the matter of conspiring with Russia to defraud the US. That would be like me claiming Clinton was guilty of sex crimes simply because her old friend Harvey Weinstein turned out to be a rapist and serial abuser.

Where is the evidence supporting the idea that the President conspired with the Russian government? Why wasn't FBI able to find it in 2017?

www.nytimes.com...

Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia

Then you know everything about Felix Sater...don't you?

He got one thing right: "Make them pay big time for their excessess".

He just didn't realise that 'them' means people like him.
It is vital that when the dust settles, they are made to pay - big time. There can be no forgiveness, getting along, or moving on - because that will only lead to another attempt to destroy the west.

a reply to: JBurns

First, there nothing to be contrary about what i said... It was very neutral.

But was this from an elected official or from another thread? I get what you are saying but here me out because i thought the same as you i believe.

Graduated college as a Dem
After 2 years i became a hardcore Rep
Then realized it's all a game of control.

Radicals don't last for long because they eat their own. Progressives from both parties are more to worry about IMO.

To wrap up, if we lead by example, be good, and positive, that it is addictive and others follow suit...not only that but more people are willing to listen

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I don't disagree with action, im just saying the OP made a thread about a post.

I guess the concept of making an OP on ATS is lost to me. It's more like a rant.

Left-wing voter: "Make them pay big time for their excesses"

Even cows and their farts are fascist now.

They're gonna PAY!!!!

So now we're making threads based off of what random people say on the internet?

Man the threshold for what constitutes a valid OP has definitely dropped.

Be right back. I'm going to go grab some racist posts from r/The_Donald and make some threads on how everyone on the Right are Nazis.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: EchoChamber

FYI, I specifically didn't label democrats horrible people I labeled radical zealot leftists horrible people because they are. Generally not very intelligent either, despite their constant condescending arrogant attitude.

As is the same for radical zealot righties. The vocal (and actual) minorities of both parties. People should stop offering them platforms for their attention seeking babble.

a reply to: EchoChamber

Why are you supporting issues that make you look like a laughing stock if you're free thinking and intelligent?

Hi, liberal here. I make lots of money, work more than the average Joe, and I don't want any of your stuff.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So now we're making threads based off of what random people say on the internet?

Man the threshold for what constitutes a valid OP has definitely dropped.

Be right back. I'm going to go grab some racist posts from r/The_Donald and make some threads on how everyone on the Right are Nazis.

We'll wait.

originally posted by: JBurns
More revisionist history BS. Pres. Lincoln = Republican. The Republican party freed the slaves and kept the Union together.

Ummm... The Emancipation Proclamation did not, contrary to popular myth, free all of the slaves. It only freed the slaves in the Southern States. Slaves in the Northern States that allowed slavery were not included.

Lincoln was all for sending all of the slaves back to Africa.