2 1

LINK Report: Rod Rosenstein Crippled The Mueller Investigation

Which explains why the Mueller findings were so limited.

snytiger6 9 Aug 31

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


The Mueller investigation was nothing but a bogus attempt by the sore looser democrats to remove Trump from office and should never have happened! In fact those responsible for this investigation should be arrested and if convicted sent to prison. @spiketalon, @captain_feelgood

. . . Mueller is a registered Republican.

@FearlessFly True, but the never Trump Repubs are in league with the Dems though, and such was obvious during the DNC.

@SpikeTalon . . . some of them are just lately anti Trump -- loyalty is not immutable.

@FearlessFly Valid point on the timing part, but anti-Trumpers all the same...

@SpikeTalon IMO, that would strongly indicate valid reasons to be anti Trump, regardless of whatever Dems are up-to. Some of them came to that rationale early, some lately.

@FearlessFly I'm anti-both parties, Biden is no better. JFK would have been the last President I would have put my full support behind.

@FearlessFly Ever heard of a RINO?? Mueller is a prime example.. I'm curious, what "would strongly indicate valid reasons to be anti Trump, regardless of whatever Dems are up-to"??

@Captain_Feelgood "RINO" name-calling weakens any attempted point.

"valid reasons to be anti Trump" -- ask the non-Dems who (like the LP) who are actively opposed.

@FearlessFly Saying someone is a RINO is not name calling... A RINO is a 'Republican In Name Only".... Perhaps you had not heard that term... And why would I ask the "non-Dems"??? That makes no sense.. You're the one that made the claim,, so support it..

@Captain_Feelgood I certainly have heard the term, I am not aware of anyone who chooses to call themselves that -- not a 'term of endearment'.

@Captain_Feelgood I used to be a republican many years ago. However, when I saw they were abandoning ethics, I left. There are still a very few ethical republicans who do what is right, even if it goes against the party. The party refers to them as RINOs, because they balue their own ethics over the party. Mueller is one of those. He was very ethical in his investigation, even if it was undermined sabotaged and blocked by other republicans who put their party's interests ahead of their personal ethics. If you stand behind a person or party, right or wrong, you will eventually end up givign up all your ethics and morals. When someone is in the wrong, you say so and call them out, even if they are on your side or on your team. If you think winning is everything you will destroy everything trying to win.

I'd (mostly) support the 1956 republican platform. I was brought up to believe in those values. Today's republican part is completely different from that platform and those values I was brought up to believe in.

If Donald Trump represents today's republicans, then the party deserves to die, because there are no ethics or morals left which it still stands for.

@snytiger6 The democrat party is the one that needs to die. Hell today there’s very little difference between the democrats and the socialist/communist parties.

@Trajan61 I think you may have just demonstrated my point. If you support your guy right or wrong. I at least started with the qualifier of "If Donald Trump represents today's republican party..." It wasnt' a outright condemnation.

From yur statements you dont' even make distinctions between socialism and communism. Not only are they different but there are many subsets of each.

Personally I like the democratic socialist of Norther Europe. It is still a capitalist system, but the excesses of capitalism are highly regulated. They pay higher taxes, but after the taxes and living expenses are paid, they still have more discretionary money left over than the average American. They do have free elections.

@snytiger6 If you studied history you’d know that socialism and communism are very similar. Both require all powerful governments that are supposed to taking care of the their citizens from cradle to grave. The problem is they just don’t work. The democrats keep using Norway as an example of working socialism. Yet Norway is the largest oil and gas producer outside the Middle East. With that much oil and gas wealth you can afford to do a lot of things. Yet the democrats want to do away with oil and gas!

@Trajan61 Norway is not the only democratic socialist country in Europe. Ther eis also Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden (which has an older democracy than the U.S.)

Norway is outproduced in oil and gas by the U.S., Russia, Mexico, Canada, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. [] However, the other democratic socialist countries in Europe are doing just fine without large oil production.

As Karl Marx laid it out, yes, communism and socialism wouldn't work. However, socioalism hs evolved since the writings of Marx. Everything has a starting point and oftne the starting place doesn't really work all that well. As an example, Freud was wrong in almost everything he wrote, but psychology have evolved to be useful and helpful to people. Marx got the diagnosis most correct of the excesses of capitalism, but was totally wrong about the prescription he proposed. modern democratic socialism is actually a hybrid of socialism and capitalism.

you can talk about the many failed attempt to put Marx's theories into action. It is true that he was wrong. But it is also true that his writings were only a strting point and modern democratic socialism is working very well in several countries (most of which have a higher average standard of li9ving that we do here in the U.S.).

As for democrats wantign to get us off oil and gas (fossil fuels), that is (mostly) true. Democrats do want to covert over to renewable energy sources that don't emit greenhouse gases which are causing climate changes. We only have the one planet and we are fouling it up. Chanign over to renewable energy sources is a matter of trying to save the human race.

If you know history, remember that a for a great deal of this planet's history it was inhospitable to human life. Just because the planet is in the "Goldielociks zone" doesn't meant the planet will remain habitable. Granted we are not likely to see it end human life for at least a couple hundred years, but probably more like over 500 years, but the planet is heading in that direction.

When I hear the question, "If there is life on other planets, why haven't we seen any aliens?", I think it must be hard for intelligent life to give up their conveniences and general greed in order to insure the continued life of their own species... just like it is hard for humans to do so.

Still I think it is right to at least try.


Knew he was a rat when he reported to Trump "I can land the plane"

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:529632
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.