Yzermandius19

No it doesn't stink. He plans on releasing the report, he just offered a preliminary conclusion, that's what is suppose to happen. Just because Trump appointed Barr doesn't mean Barr is lying about the conclusion, if he was, he'd get caught when the report is released.

It would not be improper is Barr is lying to cover for Trump and he actually has a smoking gun. If you think anyone who defends Trump is vile human being, then you're a vile human being.

It doesn't matter if it's his job or not, he's done that job. You don't just let someone publicly completely misrepresent your position like that, if you believe they are doing that, especially not in a situation as high profile as this. Mueller could easily just say that Barr has misrepresented his conclusion, and not give any details until the report is released, but he chooses not to, because he doesn't disagree. You project your own thickness on me.

Or, he doesn't disagree with Barr. The most likely answer is, he doesn't disagree. Why would he let some lie about what he said in report? It's his style to be slandered in public without defending himself, not buying it.

How is Barr covering for Trump, when Mueller doesn't disagree with conclusion enough to state so publicly? Either they are both covering it up, or neither of them are, make up your mind.

Innocent before proven guilty, allegations are not proof. Trump's word against their's, and their allegations only came out after he ran for POTUS.

You have no proof he abuses women. You are just twisting consensual p***y grabbing into sexual assault. All politicians lie, booooring. Bill Clinton was deviant, boooring. If this is your go to material, then you really don't have any good arguments against Trump.

Once most of the report is released, you'll simply say that the smoking gun is in the redacted parts, lets wait for total redaction, until then Trump is guilty until proven innocent. If Barr was lying about what Mueller said in the report, Mueller could say so, yet he hasn't. If you are holding out hope that there is smoking gun in there, Barr and Mueller are just covering for Trump, you're even more gullible than I thought.

Pretending that everyone who doesn't bash on Trump 24/7 is an evil person, that's why Trump won. You have no moral high ground, you're just insufferably sanctimonious.

Clearly you have no good argument against Trump, hence the need to resort to grasping at foreign approval rating straws to attack him. The world doesn't like Trump as much as Obama, because the media hates the former and is in the bag for the later, especially foreign media. Whoop dee do. Canadians hate Trump because he ran as a Republican, if he had run as a Democrat, they'd love him. Same goes with the media, in the bag for democrats, CBC propaganda arm says Orange Man Bad, so Canadians foolishly believe them, but they wouldn't be saying that if he was a Democrat.

No the US is not the laughing stock of the world, just because some foreigners hate Trump and liked Obama more. Canadians are some of the dumbest anti-Trump folks there are in fact, Trump is the Secret President of Canada, and they are biting the hand that feeds them. Sucking up to the rest of the world, is not how the United States should be conducting itself, anyway. More grasping at straws to attack Trump, approval rating abroad, no one cares, except his haters.

If some foreigners don't like Donald Trump, that's a feature, not a bug. America's standing on the world stage is doing just fine, even though the President has many haters abroad. Like I say, if your biggest criticism of Trump, is the words the he uses, then you don't have much of a case against him, and are reaching for straws to attack him.

I'm not trying to cover for Trump failing in NK, I am agreeing with you. I am just pointing out, that you are picking some pretty terrible battles with Trump, when your go to reason for hating what he's doing with NK is praising or embracing Kim Jung Un, instead of his actual policy regarding NK.

I knew before. /shrugs You just assumed that I didn't, for some weird reason.

Just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it should be. Free Speech Haters and Canadian politicians might disagree, but they would disagree now wouldn't they? Willful promotion of hatred should be 100% legal, if you trust the politicians and/or some kangaroo court human rights tribunal to decide what should and shouldn't be considered a "willful promotion of hatred", then I would say that faith is misplaced, and even if it wasn't, still shouldn't be illegal. Free Speech > Anti-Hate Speech Laws. Just because something "is", doesn't mean it "ought" to be.

Inciting hatred, should not be against the law, Canada wouldn't know what free speech was if it slapped them in the face. It does not ignite violence against the targeted people, that's just the nonsense they use to sell it to free speech haters, like yourself. Inciting violence can lead to violence against targeted people, hate speech does not, there is no need to make hate speech illegal. Free speech is not limited to what is considered polite conversation, it deliberately includes controversial topic and subjects that some people would classify as hateful.

A classical liberal bias perhaps, but reality isn't on the side of the Democrats or the mainstream media, that's for damn sure

Not all far right groups ignite terrorists who tend to linger on the fringe either. Using hate speech is not inciting violence, inciting violence is inciting violence. Some fringe terrorists being inspired by far right rhetoric that doesn't incite violence, doesn't need to be cracked down on.

You are missing the forest for the trees, Owly. Stop focusing on words designed to distract and mislead, and start focus on actual substantive policy, or your political analysis will suffer greatly.

Seems like you missed the point again. Actions speak louder than words. The problem isn't that Trump is lying about NK de-nuclearizing, the problem is that negotiation isn't the path to de-nuclearization and Trump's strategy isn't the best way to de-nuclearize NK. Focusing on lies and praising of dictators, that completely misses the point, what actually matters is policy, not the fluff that sells the policy.

So? Trump is negotiating, and trying to butter him up. It won't work, negotiating for the sake of negotiation isn't going to make NK de-nuclearize, no matter how much he praises Kim. That's why I criticize Trump on his handling of NK, not because he's trying to butter up Kim during attempted negotiations, unlike some people who fixate on the buttering up as if that's some great crime, while ignoring the policy reasons to beef with Trump's strategy. You need to learn to pick your battles with Trump, instead of grasping at every straw. Grasping at straws weakens your case, it doesn't help it, especially when your go to material is grasping at straws.

These are all attacks on the words he uses, or how he says things, aside from hugging Kim Jong Un, which is a complaint with no actual merit. Why do you never attack on him on policy, and only for throw away stuff like that? I'm starting to think it's because you don't have any good arguments against his policies, so you focus on his words and his tone, and how he greets dictators. You are attacking Trump because you don't like his flash, while ignoring discussing anything of substance on which you disagree with his actions.

Why do you keep focusing on the words of politicians, instead of their actions again? All your major beefs with Trump are about the words he uses, or tone he uses when he speaks, instead of critiquing him on actions you disagree with. You are attacking Trump's flash almost exclusively while not attacking Trump's substance.

I can learn about Trump's lies, without the media pretending that he's lying, even when he isn't. If you can't determine when Trump is lying without media "fact checkers", that's your problem, not mine.

Your faith in the media, is unfounded. Also plenty of lies they accuse Trump of, aren't even lies, which means the media is lying about of ton of Trump's supposed lies.