The Right Side of the News

Multiple examples of wrongful convictions leading to execution.
Wrongful execution - Wikipedia

It always amazes me that people who claim to be pro-life are also pro death penalty.

Yes, the wrongful convictions are certainly a strong reason to reject the death penalty where there is any doubt at all. I'm arguing against the PRINCIPLE that makes the death penalty wrong as such. Even if it would be right to withhold it in all cases because of uncertainty, in principle it is right to punish murderers by death. And these days with the greater certainty made possible by DNA matching there should be far less uncertainty. Withhold the penalty where uncertainty still remains then, but apply it where there is no doubt. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

'Yes that is the twisted logic being imposed on us these days. Kill the innocent, spare the guilty.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your morals are warped and disgusting.

The Washington Examiner is definitely right-wing (probably nowhere near enough for Faith) but known for solid reporting and sourcing. Trump’s latest Mexico tariff gambit is reckless and mindbogglingly stupid It's not long and it's worth reading. Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yes! You do understand! Excellent.Now, repeat that pharse 5 times then drop a 10 spot in the collection box on your way out.

The problem with this is that Mueller is on record in discussions with Barr saying that in no way did the policy against indicting a sitting President enter into the judgments in the report.And second, since the report was all about establishing criminal activity in the service of promoting Trump's campaign, if from the beginning they committed to not bringing any charges, what on earth was the point of the investigation at all?There would have been nothing to stop Mueller from documenting whatever criminal behavior they did discover on Trump's part whether or not they could indict. Clearly he wants to encourage the Democrats to proceed with impeachment on the utter lack of any proof of criminal activity at all, so if he'd found any actual criminal acts he would have given them more ammunition if he'd stated them.To say that would have been unfair since they couldn't indict anyway is a strange sort of evasion.And again, Mueller IS on record stating three times that the policy of not indicting a sitting President did NOT affect the judgments stated in the report. Barr asked him explicitly and he denied it explicitly. So did he lie to Barr or did he lie in this recent statement?

quote:

---

The problem with this is that Mueller is on record in discussions with Barr saying that in no way did the policy against indicting a sitting President enter into the judgments in the report.

---

If you are going to accuse Mueller of lying some evidence would be good. Please support this assertion.

I get a lot of interfering messages when I go to the link. Can't you just paraphrase the main points?I know there would be hardships for some importers of Mexican goods among other things, if that's the point, but it seems worth it to me to apply some kind of pressure on Mexico to stop the flood of illegals.

Mueller is not on record in discussions with Barr saying that in no way did the policy against indicting a sitting President enter into the judgments in the report.. Barr is on record claiming that, but he has no credibility after that letter about the Mueller report. Quote or link to your support for this claim.They did not commit to not bringing charges against the rest of his organizations, and they brought many. On the obstruction issue they decided to impartially collect evidence but make no determinations, trusting authorized others (hint:Congress) to interpret that evidence. As we have been saying for days.(BTW, there is some question whether Barr is an "authorized other". Why isn't he bound by the DoJ policy too? He did document whatever criminal behavior they did discover on Trump's part. He documented ten incidents with sufficient evidence to indict, as attested by nearly a thousand former Federal prosecutors of all stripes. There's strong evidence for indictment.

This is one of those issues where there is a huge discrepancy between the Llft and the Right, and finding evidence for anything I hear from the Right is difficult to impossible on the internet although I've heard it over and over again on talk radio. Nothing comes up on You Tube or the Google page, though the latter is so confused I'm not sure what it's got.This to my mind is evidence of censorship of the Right by the Llftist managers of the various internet outlets. I have to assume it will all come out eventually. Of course it will if there isn't a complete media blackout of information from the Right, if there isn't a complete suppression of the usual avenues of pursuing justice.So as usual you can accuse me of getting it wrong although I've heard it over and over and over. BEFORE THIS RECENT REPORT OF MUELLER'S I knew Barr had asked him and received the answer that the policy against indicting a sitting President WAS NO PART of his decision making process in the report. I couldn't prove it when I brought it up earlier either.Again to my mind this is evidence that the Llftist propaganda is well on its way to creating the totalitarian state in which dissenting views are suppressed.The Lftst attempt to impugn Barr and treat Mueller as the innocent one is the complete reverse of the truth. Barr is the one with the honesty and integrity. Mueller is a never Trumper who did his best to manipulate words in his report to IMPLY guilt where he found none, because that's what the Democrats want.I get a sickening feeling in my gut hearing these two different accounts of the same facts over and over again.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Where did you find Barr on record CLAIMING Mueller told him that? I couldn't even find that anywhere.Barr has been impugned in your mind so you just dismiss what he said about it. What if you are the one hearing the lles? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What do we import from mexico? - CBS News

• The U.S. imported $372 billion worth of products from Mexico in 2018, more than our trade total with Canada. "U.S. trade with Mexico is basically all about cars," said one expert, with the U.S. importing $93 billion worth of cars or car parts last year, including $22 billion worth of car engines, $5 billion in car seats and $5 billion in chassis.
• Second to cars is tech equipment, including $26 billion of computers and computer parts, semiconductors and software.
• Americans also imported $6.7 billion worth of vegetables and $5.3 billion of fruit and nuts from Mexico.

https://www.cnbc.com/...s-mexico-tariffs-could-cost-you.html

quote:

---

Experts, including White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow, say American consumers can expect to pay the price as U.S. businesses pass on increased costs. The U.S. imported $346.5 billion worth of goods from Mexico in 2018, according to government data, meaning a 5% tariff will cost over $17 billion.

​

Stocks plunged Friday after Trump’s announcement. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 300 points, the S&P 500 fell 1.2% and the Nasdaq Composite was down 1.3%....

​

Top imports from Mexico, according to the government, include vehicles (including passenger cars), machinery (including flat-screen TVs), mineral fuels and medical instruments. Mexico is also the U.S.’s largest agricultural importer, which means the following foods will likely become more expensive:

​

Fresh vegetables, including asparagus, cauliflower, celery, kale and lettuce
Fresh fruit, including avocados, berries, dates, figs, kiwis, pineapples and tomatoes
Wine and beer
Snack foods
Processed fruit and vegetables

​

Business Insider reports that the tariffs could have significant impact on the avocado trade, with the U.S. importing 85% of its Hass avocados from Mexico last year. Chipotle stock dropped 3% on Friday, as investors worried about how the restaurant chain would be impacted by the increased avocado costs.

​

Mark Hamrick, senior economic analyst at Bankrate.com, says imposing tariffs to fix an immigration problem is akin to “fielding a baseball team for a football game. It doesn’t compute and is likely counter-productive.”

---

Hope you don't eat a lot of guac.Continued... Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

quote:

---

This is one of those issues where there is a huge discrepancy between the Llft and the Right, and finding evidence for anything I hear from the Right is difficult to impossible on the internet although I've heard it over and over again on talk radio. Nothing comes up on You Tube or the Google page, though the latter is so confused I'm not sure what it's got.

---

That’s probably because your sources aren’t telling the truth - or you’re getting it wrong.

quote:

---

This to my mind is evidence of censorship of the Right by the Llftist managers of the various internet outlets. I have to assume it will all come out eventually. Of course it will if there isn't a complete media blackout of information from the Right, if there isn't a complete suppression of the usual avenues of pursuing justice.

---

My explanation is far more likely.

quote:

---

So as usual you can accuse me of getting it wrong although I've heard it over and over and over. BEFORE THIS RECENT REPORT OF MUELLER'S I knew Barr had asked him and received the answer that the policy against indicting a sitting President WAS NO PART of his decision making process in the report. I couldn't prove it when I brought it up earlier either.

---

It doesn’t matter when you heard it if you haven’t got a reliable source. And Barr himself is hardly a reliable source.(Barr’s Wikipedia bio makes interesting reading. Apparently he was a big fan of spying and investigating Presidents.)

quote:

---

Again to my mind this is evidence that the Llftist propaganda is well on its way to creating the totalitarian state in which dissenting views are suppressed.

---

Says the number one fan of suppressing dissenting views.

quote:

---

The Lftst attempt to impugn Barr and treat Mueller as the innocent one is the complete reverse of the truth. Barr is the one with the honesty and integrity. Mueller is a never Trumper who did his best to manipulate words in his report to IMPLY guilt where he found none, because that's what the Democrats want.

---

And there’s the usual vile inversion. It’s not a smear to point out that Barr’s not-a-summary misrepresented the Mueller report. It’s a fact. And that proves Barr’s dishonesty.