Chump for President

[marshallnoise]

Media = Nothing to see here, move along!

[LBJefferies]

and the plot thickens

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/susan-ri...y-source-says/

I'm sorry but can you please explain to me why this is an issue? Because the article says that unmasking is legal and not an uncommon practice. So what's the problem? If it's legal, and the unmasking showed contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia, that seems to me like an acceptable use of intelligence resources. But hey, my reality is different than yours so if you disagree just say so.

And can you also explain to me why this article stuck out to you while an article like this one about a back channel between Trump and Putin aren't important in your view? http://https://www.washingtonpost.co...37a8e#comments

Lets be honest Sleeve, if a source is critical of Trump you will dismiss or ignore it. If a source is supportive of Trump your will be inclined to agree with it and add it to your debate weaponry. Amiright?

[mrsleeve]

I said the plot thickens, I am not weighing in on this Yay or Nay fashion yet. Legal? sure, i guess (should it be with out a court order is another matter). Approaching a dangerous line? kinda from a ethics and legal perspective. Convenient for the admin with close ties to candidate running on the D ticket to funnel information or for the the current admin at the time to find dirt to use? VERY......

Lets be honest, Your a partisan hack, just like Chucky Schumer that is so blinded by "stopping" anything trump irregardless of what it is (like filibustering a SCOTUS nom, that has never been done in the history of the senate before)

No I read and get my news form many places, I am more of give a guy a chance camp still. Just think there is going to be more to come out with all of this now that someones ass might be a bit closer to the fire there is going to be a bit more talking trying to keep ones ass outta the fire.......

As to the back channeling, the article I saw about it in the BI gave a time line of "days before" the Inauguration, not weeks or months before, and while thats sometihng that should be looked into is far less of an issue in my mind than using the powers of the federal spy machine to help your party win a fucking election. You don think govt officials are not back channeling every day??? If you think all com's are on the up and up your fucking more naive than I thought .

[LBJefferies]

I said the plot thickens, I am not weighing in on this Yay or Nay fashion yet. Legal? sure, i guess (should it be with out a court order is another matter). Approaching a dangerous line? kinda from a ethics and legal perspective. Convenient for the admin with close ties to candidate running on the D ticket to funnel information or for the the current admin at the time to find dirt to use? VERY......

Lets be honest, Your a partisan hack, just like Chucky Schumer that is so blinded by "stopping" anything trump irregardless of what it is (like filibustering a SCOTUS nom, that has never been done in the history of the senate before)

No I read and get my news form many places, I am more of give a guy a chance camp still. Just think there is going to be more to come out with all of this now that someones ass might be a bit closer to the fire there is going to be a bit more talking trying to keep ones ass outta the fire.......

As to the back channeling, the article I saw about it in the BI gave a time line of "days before" the Inauguration, not weeks or months before, and while thats sometihng that should be looked into is far less of an issue in my mind than using the powers of the federal spy machine to help your party win a fucking election. You don think govt officials are not back channeling every day??? If you think all com's are on the up and up your fucking more naive than I thought .

It's not possible for me to be a partisan hack as I am an Independent and voted for candidates from both parties this last election. Did you vote for any Democrats? I'd bet good money that you didn't.

[mrsleeve]

Your rhetoric speaks to the contrary. I am a conservative with strong libertarian ideals, I vote accordingly.

[BraveUlysses]

Your rhetoric speaks to the contrary. I am a conservative with strong libertarian ideals, I vote accordingly.

didn't you vote for tromp instead of GJ?

[marshallnoise]

Binary election choice = compromise. Can't pin a tail on that donkey.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk

[naplesE30]

GJ is, and was terrible. Why libertarians keep nominating him I dont know. They missed the boat by not nominating Austin Peterson. They pissed away a golden opportunity in 2016.

LB you do not come across as an independent. I am guessing by both parties you mean the Dem and Communist parties? I kid I kid. Way to many get caught up by what letter is next to a candidates name. This country has been conditioned to be one or the other regardless of what an actual candidates beliefs are.

This new trend of silencing disent and closing ones mind to contrary thoughts is only going to lead to further polarization.

[LBJefferies]

Your rhetoric speaks to the contrary. I am a conservative with strong libertarian ideals, I vote accordingly.

Do you even read my posts? There is a clear pattern in my posts showing that I am a right leaning Independent. I own guns, I was in the military, I am pro-business, for decentralized government, etc. But you're right in that I have a seething hatred for the Republicans in federal government. They've pulled a massive con job on the American people convincing them that they are classical liberals when they are anything but. They are obsessed with Evangelical Christianity to the point of downright creepiness, they are obsessed with war and the military, obsessed with being anti-liberal and anti-Hillary/Obama, completely brainwashed by Fox News and now with that authoritative frat boy and his protectionist economics, they have completely departed from their classical liberalism. The national Republican party is essentially a fascist party and I do not use that term lightly I mean it absolutely and the evidence is all there.

[marshallnoise]

Do you even read my posts? There is a clear pattern in my posts showing that I am a right leaning Independent. I own guns, I was in the military, I am pro-business, for decentralized government, etc.

This part makes sense.

But you're right in that I have a seething hatred for the Republicans in federal government. They've pulled a massive con job on the American people convincing them that they are classical liberals when they are anything but. They are obsessed with Evangelical Christianity to the point of downright creepiness, they are obsessed with war and the military, obsessed with being anti-liberal and anti-Hillary/Obama, completely brainwashed by Fox News and now with that authoritative frat boy and his protectionist economics, they have completely departed from their classical liberalism. The national Republican party is essentially a fascist party and I do not use that term lightly I mean it absolutely and the evidence is all there.

This part doesn't. In fact, it makes you a lefty who is pro-business, pro-small government, and pro-gun.

In other words, confused.

[mbonder]

This part makes sense.



This part doesn't. In fact, it makes you a lefty who is pro-business, pro-small government, and pro-gun.

In other words, confused.

I'm not necessarily defending anyone here, but why can't a person be both? Doesn't necessarily make him confused or someone that is one side or the other righteous.

Having such strict stances has led to inaction, I think if people were a bit more flexible we'd be able to move things along, but apparently you can't be for government assistance programs and like guns...or any other similarly polarized stance.

[marshallnoise]

I'm not necessarily defending anyone here, but why can't a person be both? Doesn't necessarily make him confused or someone that is one side or the other righteous.

Having such strict stances has led to inaction, I think if people were a bit more flexible we'd be able to move things along, but apparently you can't be for government assistance programs and like guns...or any other similarly polarized stance.

Because, in LBJeffries' case, he is clearly confused. You can't be pro-gun, pro-smaller government, and pro-business yet at the same time NOT be anti-liberal since those three things are what the liberals are against (guns, small government, and business).

There are philosophies that rule people's lives and then there are emotions. That's the way I see it.

When you respond emotionally to a specific issue that is contrary to your philosophies/world view, then there is a conflict. Being both is ok, so long as you are aware that you are contradicting your world view in this one (or several) instance. This is why I believe that many libertarians are basically confused.

Being a classical liberal on the other hand is a vanguard by which you filter your beliefs. You check concepts against what classical liberals believe. For instance, gay marriage. A classical liberal may personally not be for it, but understands that people are allowed to be free so the best solution is to get the government out of marriage of all stripes. This allows everyone to get what they want in terms of marriage but also offends the fewest people (at least its not sanctioned, etc).

[LBJefferies]

This part makes sense.



This part doesn't. In fact, it makes you a lefty who is pro-business, pro-small government, and pro-gun.

In other words, confused.

Uhhhh, no, I am not confused. I am a classical liberal. I have laid out a pretty clear cut argument for why the Republicans are no longer Classical liberals eventhough they say they are. I am not confused, it's the Republican party that is confused.

[marshallnoise]

Uhhhh, no, I am not confused. I am a classical liberal. I have laid out a pretty clear cut argument for why the Republicans are no longer Classical liberals eventhough they say they are. I am not confused, it's the Republican party that is confused.

I agree, they are not Classical Liberals (some are ie. Freedom Caucus). But hating on just the Republicans and not liberals too (cause they ain't classical liberals either) is just plain weird.

[Dagamus(NM)]

"You can't be pro-gun, pro-smaller government, and pro-business yet at the same time NOT be anti-liberal since those three things are what the liberals are against (guns, small government, and business)."

Wrong. You have been led to believe something that just is not true.

Conservative politicians make a whole lot of noise about these things but at the end of the day it is mostly a con.

While there are plenty of anti gun people out there, the majority of people want to see reforms that prevent gun crime. Taking guns away is not the answer but neither is arming toddlers. Policy meeting this is possible.

Please tell me (and Tomi Lahren) how small government relates to an individual and their rights to do with their body as they please? Small government and the war on drugs work how? Maybe it is small government related to the US prison system.

Being pro business and pro screwing workers/environment/etc. are not mutually exclusive. Those that promote this are greedy selfish jerks.