• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump is said to be livid at Barr, with one official suggesting termination possible

OscarLevant said:
Au contraire,

This entire board is "MSM", and WaPo is MSM. SO, if you are going to post on an MSM board, you should, at the very minimum, subscribe to WSJ, NYTimes, and Wapo.

You have no credibility here.
Click to expand...
WaPo USED to be MSM. It's become pretty fringe, especially with regards to national politics. Since they paywall their articles, I don't think they should be used here. Everyone should be able to read and evaluate the articles for themselves. If it's a major news story, it will be covered by freely available sources. Suggesting that people need to pay for source material (especially one that has such credibility issues) is pretty silly.
 
Tahuyaman said:
He's been the best AG in recent memory. My only criticism is that he has moved too slowly on punishing the corruption of the previous Justice Department.


Who says Trump is livid over Barr's statements? That's right, anonymous sources again. That's code for the media making it up.
Click to expand...

Your partisan slavery is showing. Barr is a clear, corrupt piece of shit; and was appointed as a yes-man. Esper, SECDEF, was the same; and after he defied Trump, with Trump losing the election, he went ahead and fired him in his typical "you were disloyal" fashion. But now that Barr shutdown Trump's conspiracy game on two counts, you find it difficult to believe that Trump isn't pleased?

Disputing President Donald Trump’s persistent, baseless claims, Attorney General William Barr declared Tuesday the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud The comments, which drew immediate criticism from Trump attorneys, were especially notable coming from Barr, who has been one of the president’s most ardent allies.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he is "not happy" with Attorney General William Barr after the Justice Department's investigation of the Obama administration found no wrongdoing and quietly concluded with no criminal charges.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So, as the entire world already knew, no evidence of wrong-doing by the Obama Administration; and no evidence of Democrat fraud against Trump, another clear, corrupt piece of shit. I guess that delusion of a deep state just keeps getting bigger and bigger, huh? It's sad how worshipping Donald Trump meant sacrificing common sense.
 
Last edited:
Tahuyaman said:
He's been the best AG in recent memory. My only criticism is that he has moved too slowly on punishing the corruption of the previous Justice Department.


Who says Trump is livid over Barr's statements? That's right, anonymous sources again. That's code for the media making it up.
Click to expand...

AG’s don’t punish people.

Anonymous sources have been used for ages. Know why? Because if people talk on the record their bosses may punish them for it. What matters is whether or not the statement seems credible. Given everything we know about the President it is. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t furious with Barr.
 
rjay said:
So, Barr is safe? You believe the Post will print a story without multiple sources?

If Barr is let go, it will be a coincidence, got it.
Click to expand...
I think the Post will print anything negative about Trump, regardless of basis. Look how they are even couching this story. 'anonymous sources told of the matter'. And the non-committal nature of what they said. 'Trump is angry.' 'Trump is livid'. Why do they think that? What did Trump say? Nothing that can be pinned down. They could have been talking to the groundskeeper. 'Barr could be fired!' - OK. Anyone could be fired. Did Trump say he was going to fire Barr? If Barr is fired... or not... they can claim to be right.

It's rumors and speculation, not news.
 
dcsports said:
WaPo USED to be MSM. It's become pretty fringe, especially with regards to national politics. Since they paywall their articles, I don't think they should be used here. Everyone should be able to read and evaluate the articles for themselves. If it's a major news story, it will be covered by freely available sources. Suggesting that people need to pay for source material (especially one that has such credibility issues) is pretty silly.
Click to expand...

It is MSM, per acceptance as an MSM source per this forum. So, present your case to the moderators, otherwise you are dismissed on this point.
 
OscarLevant said:
It is MSM, per acceptance as an MSM source per this forum. So, present your case to the moderators, otherwise you are dismissed on this point.
Click to expand...
You can post it if you want. It's a poor source, and I'm free to point that out.
 
Psst fascist leaders are not the most loyal to their subordinates.
 
OscarLevant said:
I disagree.
Click to expand...
And you can say that too, although I suspect it's more because you like the subject than that it follows good journalistic standards.
 
dcsports said:
And you can say that too, although I suspect it's more because you like the subject than that it follows good journalistic standards.
Click to expand...

whatever
 
dcsports said:
Not all papers have paywalls. However, the whole point of this, and the requirement to post a link, is that everyone can review the original source and have an informed discussion. If an article is locked behind a paywall, it's useless for a discussion forum. IMHO - we should be looking at articles which can be shared, read, and evaluated by everyone.

I understand how anonymous sources work, and they make sense in limited circumstances. What wapo is doing is different. Virtually every article on this administration is from anonymous sources. Many don't even appear to be direct... it's "a source with knowledge of..." or "a person told of a meeting", etc. Plus they appear to scoop up every piece of gossip, scrap of a conversation, or in this case 'feeling', hyping it up, and presenting it as news. This is a great example. They have no credibility here.
Click to expand...
"No credibility", you say? Is that anything like Trump announcing his 'beautiful' healthcare plan would be revealed "within two weeks"? That was in July. Any sign of it yet? If you want examples of zero credibility you need look no further than the current occupier of the Oval Office.
www.msnbc.com

Trump’s health care plan has been ‘two weeks away’ for months

Republicans don’t want to admit they are trying to get rid of Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic. So instead, they “lie and pathetically promise over and over that in ‘just two weeks’ or so they'll have a solution,” says Chris Hayes.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
 
dcsports said:
I think the Post will print anything negative about Trump, regardless of basis. Look how they are even couching this story. 'anonymous sources told of the matter'. And the non-committal nature of what they said. 'Trump is angry.' 'Trump is livid'. Why do they think that? What did Trump say? Nothing that can be pinned down. They could have been talking to the groundskeeper. 'Barr could be fired!' - OK. Anyone could be fired. Did Trump say he was going to fire Barr? If Barr is fired... or not... they can claim to be right.

It's rumors and speculation, not news.
Click to expand...
Yet you were unable to see that in Fox news coverage of Obama?
 
snakestretcher said:
"No credibility", you say? Is that anything like Trump announcing his 'beautiful' healthcare plan would be revealed "within two weeks"? That was in July. Any sign of it yet? If you want examples of zero credibility you need look no further than the current occupier of the Oval Office.
www.msnbc.com

Trump’s health care plan has been ‘two weeks away’ for months

Republicans don’t want to admit they are trying to get rid of Obamacare in the middle of a pandemic. So instead, they “lie and pathetically promise over and over that in ‘just two weeks’ or so they'll have a solution,” says Chris Hayes.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
Click to expand...
lol -- whataboutism that doesn't even make sense. How do you think it's even related?
 
joko104 said:
Jeff Bezos is a liar. Believe nothing you read in WaPo. If it is in WaPo about Trump, it is always a lie. Bezos would kill a thousand people if it would make him $1. There is no law he will not break and no lie he will not tell. BUT he is THE #1 GOD to nearly all Democrats and the Democratic Party are his slaves and servants.
Click to expand...

Of course. Trump is thrilled with what Barr said and is taking him at his word. He just conceded even though he really win!
 
Tahuyaman said:
He's been the best AG in recent memory. My only criticism is that he has moved too slowly on punishing the corruption of the previous Justice Department.


Who says Trump is livid over Barr's statements? That's right, anonymous sources again. That's code for the media making it up.
Click to expand...

I'm sure Trump is actually cheering Barr. Him being mad makes no sense at all.

So if Barr is right, you will all be giving up this charade of Trump's victory?
 
dcsports said:
I don't watch Fox news. What does that have to do with this topic?
Click to expand...

If all the Repubs around here who claimed not to watch Fix actually didn't, they'd be out of business for lack of viewership.
 
rocket88 said:
I'm sure Trump is actually cheering Barr. Him being mad makes no sense at all.

So if Barr is right, you will all be giving up this charade of Trump's victory?
Click to expand...
What did that have to do with my comment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom