Barr rejects key finding in report on Russia probe: report

[laylalex 7,284]

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

He hasn't met all the criteria to be on the GA GOP primary ballot, which is why neither he nor Walsh made it. 

 

It's not surprising, because he's not a serious candidate. 

Okay, I wasn't talking only about Weld (which is why I said "a person" and not "Weld"). But again, who is the arbiter of what is "serious"? I think there were any number of people before the Iowa caucuses who would have said Trump wasn't a "serious" candidate. And what is the harm if a person (and I use the generic here, not specifically Weld) meets the criteria and is on the ballot?

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

17 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

He hasn't met all the criteria to be on the GA GOP primary ballot, which is why neither he nor Walsh made it. 

 

It's not surprising, because he's not a serious candidate. 

Bingo he didnt meet the existing requirments.  Some Democrats didnt either. Just like not all democratic candidates got to the debate. Nothing to see here. Just the proverbial greyhound chasing a fake rabbit around a track. 

 

Down with low information voters 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Okay, I wasn't talking only about Weld (which is why I said "a person" and not "Weld"). But again, who is the arbiter of what is "serious"? I think there were any number of people before the Iowa caucuses who would have said Trump wasn't a "serious" candidate. And what is the harm if a person (and I use the generic here, not specifically Weld) meets the criteria and is on the ballot?

Your excessive latching on the word "serious" has you missing several points:

- It was me who opined that Weld isn't "serious", having been someone who followed him and Johnson and voted for them in 2016, which I regret

- I am not the GA GOP, in fact, I am not a Republican at all (never have been, never will be)

- The GA GOP's decision was based on Weld and Walsh not meeting the criteria to be on the ballot. Not that they weren't "serious".

 

Think this point has been exhausted now.

Edited December 3, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 hour ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Your excessive latching on the word "serious" has you missing several points:

- It was me who opined that Weld isn't "serious", having been someone who followed him and Johnson and voted for them in 2016, which I regret

- I am not the GA GOP, in fact, I am not a Republican at all (never have been, never will be)

- The GA GOP's decision was based on Weld and Walsh not meeting the criteria to be on the ballot. Not that they weren't "serious".

 

Think this point has been exhausted now.

You sing and dance well enough as some sort of independent, but you tow the part line in more ways than you are aware of. 

 

If you are exhausted take the evening off and rest up.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

13 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

You sing and dance well enough as some sort of independent, but you tow the part line in more ways than you are aware of. 

 

If you are exhausted take the evening off and rest up.

What line am I towing again? 

[90DayFinancier 910]

4 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

What line am I towing again? 

The all hail God emperor Trump line.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

22 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

The all hail God emperor Trump line.

It's sounding like to me you have no argument, and thus are whining about some "god emperor" caricature. 

 

You also incorrectly portray independents as confused fence-sitters who can't make up their own minds about things. On the contrary, more independents support Trump now than 2016. There's a good reason for it, it's called results. I'm sure it also helps when people who oppose him have difficulty making rational arguments.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

23 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It's sounding like to me you have no argument, and thus are whining about some "god emperor" caricature. 

 

You also incorrectly portray independents as confused fence-sitters who can't make up their own minds about things. On the contrary, more independents support Trump now than before 2016. There's a good reason for it, it's called results. I'm sure it also helps when people who oppose him have difficulty making rational arguments.

Let's discuss rationality:

 

In a post last week you talked about a Trump 2024 victory. So your Independence is so strong you want to suspend or amend your Constitution so Trump can have another term.  It sure sounds like you have partaken of some rare Kool aid.

 

I am not potraying independents as anything. I am questioning your politically independent bona fides.

 

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[laylalex 7,284]

3 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Your excessive latching on the word "serious" has you missing several points:

- It was me who opined that Weld isn't "serious", having been someone who followed him and Johnson and voted for them in 2016, which I regret

- I am not the GA GOP, in fact, I am not a Republican at all (never have been, never will be)

- The GA GOP's decision was based on Weld and Walsh not meeting the criteria to be on the ballot. Not that they weren't "serious".

 

Think this point has been exhausted now.

No, I really was asking what "serious" means. What does "serious" mean generally to you, and why, hypothetically, should a person who otherwise (and for the avoidance of doubt I am NOT talking about Weld here) meets the criteria for inclusion on a ballot be excluded because they are not "serious" enough under your criteria? If you don't want to reply because you find me tiresome, that's okay. I won't take any offense.  I have been told I am tiresome on many occasions. 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

58 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Let's discuss rationality:

 

In a post last week you talked about a Trump 2024 victory. So your Independence is so strong you want to suspend or amend your Constitution so Trump can have another term.  It sure sounds like you have partaken of some rare Kool aid.

 

I am not potraying independents as anything. I am questioning your political independent bona fides.

 

 

Oh no, I talked about Trump in 2024? I bet I was dead serious, too! 😂  #Trump2028

 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news though, that's not you discussing rationality, you've neither rationally discussed the topic (opting to attack me personally instead and go through my posts, apparently, though I've not seen the post in question), nor rationally assessed my status as an independent even when attacking me personally. 

 

Just because I explain why the Libertarian I voted for was a mistake, how he's not serious, how he monetizes TDS, and explain the rules (which are fact, not opinion), has nothing to do with independence or non-independence or "part line" whatsoever. There's no "part line" to tow, as I have no "part". But, toward my comment about irrationality, caricaturing with "God emperor Trump", searching my posts and claiming I made a serious post about Trump suspending the Constitution, points perfectly to your irrationality. I'd suggest working on that.

 

1 minute ago, laylalex said:

No, I really was asking what "serious" means. What does "serious" mean generally to you, and why, hypothetically, should a person who otherwise (and for the avoidance of doubt I am NOT talking about Weld here) meets the criteria for inclusion on a ballot be excluded because they are not "serious" enough under your criteria? If you don't want to reply because you find me tiresome, that's okay. I won't take any offense.  I have been told I am tiresome on many occasions. 

 Me: "Think this point has been exhausted now."

You: "..because you find me tiresome, that's okay. I won't take any offense."

 

😂😂😂😂

 

That was funny.

 

On discussion: You were speaking vaguely, but not hypothetically. 

 

You also said: "if a person meets all the criteria for being on a ballot and has jumped through every hoop to be on the ballot, why should a state exclude that name from the ballot"

 

Clearly you presumed this person was treated unfairly, conflated my opinion with the GOP rules. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[laylalex 7,284]

18 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

 Me: "Think this point has been exhausted now."

You: "..because you find me tiresome, that's okay. I won't take any offense."

 

😂😂😂😂

 

That was funny.

 

On discussion: You were speaking vaguely, but not hypothetically. 

 

You also said: "if a person meets all the criteria for being on a ballot and has jumped through every hoop to be on the ballot, why should a state exclude that name from the ballot"

 

Clearly you presumed this person was treated unfairly, conflated my opinion with the GOP rules. 

Now see, you thought it had been exhausted, but I hadn't. "Clearly."

 

I didn't think I was speaking anything other than hypothetically earlier, and I apologize if that wasn't clear. I never assumed that Weld was being treated unfairly -- and I do think I have stated that several times -- so I wasn't conflating your opinion with anything. Please don't put words in my mouth. "Clearly" you presumed I was conflating, but I wasn't. I was asking a hypothetical. If you don't think it's worth addressing, fair enough and I will drop it. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

27 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Oh no, I talked about Trump in 2024? I bet I was dead serious, too! 😂  #Trump2028

So you have a pipe dream view of amending the Constitution. 

 

Quote

 

I hate to be the bearer of bad news though, that's not you discussing rationality, you've neither rationally discussed the topic (opting to attack me personally instead and go through my posts, apparently, though I've not seen the post in question), nor rationally assessed my status as an independent even when attacking me personally. 

You have continually pegged those you disagree with as irrational so you really have no quarter.

 

 

You think I have time to go through your posts? Hardly, I just remember that you posted this batsheet crazy post about a third term.  That sticks out.

 

Quote

 

Just because I explain why the Libertarian I voted for was a mistake, how he's not serious, how he monetizes TDS, and explain the rules (which are fact, not opinion), has nothing to do with independence or non-independence or "part line" whatsoever. There's no "part line" to tow, as I have no "part". 

 

 

But, toward my comment about irrationality, caricaturing with "God emperor Trump", searching my posts and claiming I made a serious post about Trump suspending the Constitution, points perfectly to your irrationality. I'd suggest working on that.

 

 

If I am irrational, what is your plan to elect Donald John Trump to a third term?

Edit you doubled down with trump2028..so add that to the pile

 

Edited December 4, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

So you have a pipe dream view of amending the Constitution. 

 

You have continually pegged those you disagree with as irrational so you really have no quarter.

 

 

You think I have time to go through your posts? Hardly, I just remember that you posted this batsheet crazy post about a third term.  That sticks out.

 

If I am irrational, what is your plan to elect Donald John Trump to a third term?

If you were rational, you'd not be asking me about my plan to elect Trump to a third term.

[90DayFinancier 910]

2 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

If you were rational, you'd not be asking me about my plan to elect Trump to a third term.

You have two paths: amend the US Constitution or violent overthrow of the US government.  

 

Which path do you advocate?

Edited December 4, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

You have two paths: amend the US Constitution or violent overthrow of the US government.  

 

Which path do you advocate?

You have two paths: Rationality or irrationality.

 

The argument, or trolling about some fictional desire to amend the Constitution for a Trump 3rd term+?

Edited December 4, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds